Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT DUTIES, AUSTRALIA (COTTONYARN).

Major PROCTER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has been in consultation with the Australian Government concerning the new duties on cotton yarn; and what action he proposes to take in so far as such duties contravene the spirit of the Ottawa Agreements?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been in communication with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia on this matter. The reply of the Commonwealth Government has not yet been received, and in the circumstances I fear that I am not at present in a position to make a further statement in regard to it.

Major PROCTER: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: Immediately I have received a reply from Australia.

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY PRODUCTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has made, or will make, representations to the Australian Government that the sale of dairy products here at a lower price than in Australia constitutes unfair competition for the British dairy farmer?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The conditions to which my right hon. Friend refers are not confined to Australia, and His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not think that it would serve a useful purpose to make representations to the Commonwealth Government in the matter.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will not the agricultural interests here be prejudiced if this kind of competition continues?

Mr. THOMAS: The same principle applies with regard to Holland and Denmark. As far as the agricultural interests in this country are concerned, no one knows better than my right hon. Friend the magnificent contribution of this Government towards the resuscitation of the industry.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: is not the friendship of the agricultural industry at home and in our Dominions much more important that that of Holland and Denmark, and does not my right hon. Friend think it is most unfortunate that anything should be done to upset this friendship of the agricultural industry for the Dominions?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope nothing will be done, least of all by questions in this House, that would interfere with that friendship.

Mr. PALING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the sale of these products at these prices is the result of the, Ottawa Agreement?

Mr. THOMAS: No, it has no bearing on the Ottawa Agreement. The Ottawa Agreement covers preference as far as we are concerned and reciprocity on the other hand, but the particular question involved has nothing to do with that.

Mr. MABANE: Is it not a fact that many products of this country are sold at lower prices in Australia than here, and is it not important to be careful that no complaints are raised on that account?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, and, if hon. Members will think for a moment, the position of coal is also affected.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Miss WARD: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the aggregate tonnage of British-owned ships sold abroad for breaking-up purposes in the years
1931, 1932, 1933, and for the nine months ended September, 1934; also the amount of foreign scrap imported into this country in the corresponding years?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr.Runciman): I will circulate as soon as possible, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, such particulars as are available.

Miss WARD: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to inform the House what response he has received to the announcement of the Government's scrap and build scheme; and whether the indicated support warrants the introduction of the necessary legislation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Various inquiries have been received in regard to this scheme. No decision has yet been taken as to the introduction of legislation, but the Government is still prepared to' cooperate with the shipowners in the matter if they so desire.

Miss WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will be in a position to come to a decision?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot at the moment.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. REMER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the failure of the conference between the British and Japanese industrialists, the British Government now intend to impose quotas on Japanese imports into Great Britain; and when such import quotas are to be imposed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government will continue to give close attention to the problems which the hon. Gentleman has in mind; but, as at present advised, I doubt whether they can best be dealt with by the method suggested.

Mr. REMER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the version given of these conversations in a leading textile newspaper of Osaka, in which it reported that the British Government stated that they were going to give this quota, is correct?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know nothing about newspaper reports.

Mr. REMER: If I send my right hon. Friend a copy of what appears, will he take it into consideration?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will translate it into English, I shall be glad to see it.

BACON AND HAM.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the measure of compliance with or evasion of the bacon import quotas during the period since 1st March this year; and what steps are being taken to deal with any excessive imports in this connection?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Imports of bacon and hams from foreign countries during the period 1st March to 23rd October, 1934, were about 7 per cent. in excess of the proportionate part of the allocation for the period March-December, 7934. This excess arises from a variety of causes with which I can hardly deal within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but I may mention that the greater part of the excess is attributable to additional shipments from Denmark in exercise of her treaty right to the proportion of 62 per cent. of total foreign imports. Where necessary, the attention of foreign Governments has been drawn to their obligations to keep their exports of bacon to this country within the prescribed limits, and they have been asked to take all necessary measures to this end. The arrangements with foreign countries are under revision and it is hoped that closer adherence to the programme will be secured in future.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does not the action of Denmark show how English agricultural interests are always prejudiced by foreign agreements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, they are not always prejudiced by foreign agreements. They are very often to their advantage.

GERMAN CLOCKS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of clocks from Germany for the first nine months of this year were valued at £254,165, as against 165,489 for a similar period in 1932; whether this is due to the recent trade agreement concluded with Ger-
many; and whether he is satisfied that compensating advantages are being obtained in other directions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. No doubt the importation of clocks was facilitated by the reduction of duty under the trade agreement with Germany, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the agreement afforded substantial advantages to the United Kingdom coal trade and that as a consequence the exports of coal to Germany have increased materially during the period in question.

TURKEY.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been found possible to find a basis for the adjustment of difficulties in our commercial relations with Turkey?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certain proposals were put forward by His Majesty's Government to the Turkish Government some months ago. The Turkish Government have recently made counter-proposals which are now under examination. Every effort will be made to reach a satisfactory settlement as soon as possible.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government are alive to the great importance of establishing friendly commercial relations with Turkey at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; we are doing what we can to that end.

IMPLEMENTS AND TOOLS.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 15
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information to show for what reason the imports of implements and tools have risen in value to £424,387 for the first nine months of this year as against £214,613 for a similar period in 1933; and whether any steps are to be taken to deal with this increase?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend relate to the first nine months of 1934 and 1932, the figure for the corresponding period in 1933 being £332,475. As these goods are in general used in the production of manufactured goods of all sorts, the increase in their
importation is no doubt indicative of increased trade and industrial activity. There has been a similar increase in the much larger export trade in British tools and implements. It is of course open to the interests concerned, if they wish to do so, to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for increased duties on these goods.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rise in value is due to an increase in price or an increase in quantity?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say without notice.

RUSSIAN GREY CLOTH.

Lieut. - Commander ASTBURY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that grey cloth is being imported in considerable quantities into this country from Russia and, after being subjected in this country to a slight finishing process, is being exported from this country to West Africa as being British made; and whether he will take' the necessary steps to prevent this being done in the future?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of any trade to West Africa of the nature described in my hon. and gallant Friend's question. If he has any information on the subject and will give me particulars, I shall be glad to investigate the matter.

ITALIAN MARBLE.

Mr. LIDDALL: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the loss of employment in the monumental marble industry through the importation of manufactured marble from Italy; and what steps he is proposing to take on the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As was announced in the Press on the 16th July last a decision on a recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee regarding marble and marble products is being deferred while discussions on commercial matters are taking place with the Italian Government.

Mr. LIDDALL: Have the discussions now been concluded?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, they are still proceeding.

SILK GOODS (REGISTERED DESIGNS).

Mr. REMER: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that large quantities of Japanese silk goods imported during the current year are closely copied from Macclesfield designs in the fully manufactured state; and that these products, such as ladies' silk handkerchiefs, are sold at approximately half the cost price of Macclesfield products; and whether he will state the policy of the Government in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the protection of registered designs, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) on 14th November, 1933. The duties on silk and artificial silk were revised as recently as July last on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee after a full and careful review of the situation.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that revision had no reference whatever to Japanese competition, and that the Committee said so?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is bound to have some relation to competition from any part of the world.

Mr. REMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the samples which I sent to the Board of Trade as recently as Friday last and which show the terrible state of this trade at the present time?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to have any samples which my hon. Friend cares to send to the Board of Trade, so long as they are within our individual capacity. As I pointed out, none of the articles sent are necessarily affected by the answer I have given.

Major PROCTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the confiscation of the pirated design goods at the port of entry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The penalty for that sort of deception must be the penalty provided by the law.

JAPAN (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Mr. REMER: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the communications from the delegation visiting Japan as representing the Federation of British Industries, under the chairmanship of Lord Barnby; and, if so, when he can make a statement
to the House as to the results of this mission?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not received any communications from the delegation and, as they will be reporting to the Federation of British Industries and not to His Majesty's Government, I could not undertake to make a statement as to the results of the mission.

Mr. MANDER: Was the delegation in any sense official?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It was a delegation from the Federation of British Industries.

DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. MABANE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the rapidly growing opinion that conditions of glut in many industries which necessitate cessation of production, or the destruction of produce, are due largely to the inefficiency of existing methods of distribution; and whether, in view of that opinion, he is now prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate and report on the methods of distribution?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My opinions have remained unchanged since I answered a similar question by my hon. Friend on 26th June.

Mr. MABANE: Will my right hon. Friend tell me when the Board of Trade are likely to recognise the importance of this problem to the extent of appointing a Royal Commission to consider the whole problem of distribution?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is certainly a very large question, and we have it constantly before us, but I am not prepared to make any promise.

Mr. MABANE: Is there not a general opinion that gluts such as caused the recent destruction of herring are due to inefficiency of distribution?

WIRELESS SETS.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of foreign wireless sets imported into this country during the first nine months of this year was 53,984 as against 25,321 during a similar period in 1933; and whether any steps are being taken to reduce such imports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the fact to which attention is drawn by my hon. Friend. Any question of an increased duty on wireless sets is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the first place.

RUMANIA (EXCHANGE FACILITIES).

Sir EUGENE RAMSDEN: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that outstanding debts amounting to nearly £1,000,000 are owing to Bradford and Manchester exporters for textile goods sold in Rumania, and that in most cases this money has been paid into Rumanian banks in the currency of the country, but that difficulty is being experienced in obtaining permits which would make it possible to obtain the necessary sterling exchange; and whether he proposes to take steps which will enable these British exporters to receive payment for their goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the position described in my hon. Friend's question and representations have already been made to the Rumanian Government regarding the delay in providing foreign exchange to meet commercial debts due to exporters in this country and the restrictions which have been placed on our trade with Rumania. I can assure my hon. Friend that these matters are receiving the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government.

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.

Mr. LIDDALL: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of agricultural machinery in September, 1934, were 729 tons as compared with 527 tons in September, 1933.; and will he state what action he proposes to take?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. As regards the last part of the question, there is nothing I can add to the reply which was given to him on the 8th May.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Import Duties Advisory Committee take note of the question of agricultural machinery?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the matter be brought before the notice of the Committee by the manufacturers of agricul-
tural machinery, no doubt it will take note of it and examine it.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Seeing that this increase of imports has no relation to increased trade in the country demanding raw materials, is it not likely that the imports of manufactured goods will increase during the next few months and demand the attention of the Board of Trade rather than merely the attention of Import Duties Advisory Committee?

GOLF-TEES.

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been drawn to the !dumping into this country of wooden golf-tees at prices considerably below the cost of manufacture in this country; and what action he intends to take in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention had not been previously drawn to this question, and I have no official information as to the importation of wooden golf-tees. If the United Kingdom manufacturers consider the existing rate of duty inadequate, it is open to them to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. LINDSAY: Will the right hon Gentleman have an inquiry into it?

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what the present rate of duty is?

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some Italian footballers are going to be dumped into this country?

MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. HALES: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor cars were exported from Great Britain to the United States from 1st March to 30th September, 1933, and from 1st March to 30th September, 1934; and how many motor cars were exported from the United States to Great Britain for the same periods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the number of motor cars and chassis imported into and exported from the United Kingdom and registered during the seven months March to September, 1933 and 1934, respectively, as consigned from and to the United States:


Motor Cars and Chassis.
Total imports into the United Kingdom consigned from the United States.
Exports from the United Kingdom consigned to the United States.


Manufacture of the United Kingdom.
Imported Vehicles, etc.


March to September.


1933.
1934.
1933.
1934.
1933.
1934.



No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.


Private cars (including cabs) new (a)
703
5,009
13
3
1
1


Commercial vehicles (including motor omnibuses, motor fire engines and motor ambulances, but not including tractors) new (a).
5
23
—
—
1
—


Private cars and commercial vehicles, second-hand.
(b)
28
(b)
4
(b)
2


Chassis for motor cars, etc., with engines:








Constructed solely for commercial use
122
944
—
—
—
—


Other
276
414
10
—
—
—


Chassis for motor cars, etc., without engines.
60
48
—
—
—
—


(a) Included second-hand cars prior to 1934.


(b) Not separately recorded prior to 1934.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that since the decision to reduce the horse-power tax on motor cars in this country the importation of high horsepower ears from America has increased, and that such imports have been valued at £763,659 for the first nine months of this year as against £172,870 for a similar period in 1933; and whether he will now consider taking steps to limit this tax concession to cars of British origin?

Mr. LIDDALL: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of new private motor cars imported in the first nine months of this year was 8,255, as compared with 3,010 in the same period of last year, and 1,945 in the same period, 1932; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. HALES: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the great increase in the number of imported motor cars into this country in consequence of the recent reduction of the horse-power tax; and will he give his consideration to restricting the reduced
tax to motor cars manufactured only in Great Britain?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware of the facts and figures to which my hon. Friends refer. My right hon. Friend fears that the suggestion made as regards the horse-power tax by the hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr. Hepworth) and Hanley (Mr. Hales) is not one that he could accept. Differentiation in respect of these duties, besides being impracticable for licensing authorities, would conflict with the clear intention of many of our commercial treaties which preclude us (as they also do foreign countries in respect of our goods) from differentiating in our internal duties between home products and similar foreign products. The import duty on motor cars, in common with other Budget duties, will come up for review before the next Budget in the ordinary course. I would, however, point out that it is already at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem.

Mr. BERNAYS: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the enormous profits
which have been made by the motor car industry this year, and which do not seem to indicate that the industry is suffering very severely from foreign competition?

Mr. LYONS: May I ask whether some of the increased importation is not due to manipulation by the United States of the value of the dollar?

Mr. HALES: Was not the tax reduced for the benefit of the motor industry in Great Britain, and having regard to the fact that the results have been exactly the opposite, is not a revision of this tax necessary?

ANGLO-RUSSIAN TEMPORARY AGREEMENT.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will inform the House as to the total imports into Great Britain from Russia since the signing of the recent trade agreement and the total exports from Great Britain to Russia during the same period, excluding re-exports not manufactured in Great Britain; and whether the proportions of 1.7 to 1 of exports from Russia to Great Britain and from Great Britain to Russia, respectively, as fixed in the said trade agreement, have been maintained?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Anglo-Russian temporary commercial agreement was signed on 17th February and the only figures available for the period that has since elapsed are those for March to September. During that period the value of imports from Russia was £10,021,000, and the value of the exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures to that country was £2,277,000. The agreement does not provide that the proportion of our imports from Russia to our exports to Russia shall be in the stated ratios, but that the balance of payments between the two countries, calculated in accordance with the schedule to the agreement, shall be in those ratios.

Sir W. DAVISON: Was not the House of Commons given to understand before the approval of the trade agreement that there would be a substantial increase in the purchase of manufactured goods by Russia; and does it not appear from the figures which my right hon. Friend has given that only some £2,500,000 worth of manufactured goods have been purchased by Russia since the signing of
the agreement as against £10,000,000 worth which we have purchased from Russia? Is not that very unsatisfactory?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that during the year Russia has placed orders for many millions of pounds worth of manufactured goods which have not been delivered, and is not that consistent with the statements made when the agreement was signed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The statement made at the time did hold out the hope and prospect to the House that there would be an increase of exports to Russia. I trust that hope is not going to be belied by the facts, and I have no reason to believe that it will be. We have already received information as to many large orders having been placed in this country which will come into the figures for 1934 as a whole. May I add that we have to take into calculation here not only the actual exports from this country, but the payments made by Russia for services rendered to that country, as, for instance, in shipping and insurance, which make a material difference.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will not Russia have to restrict her imports to this country if she has to pay money to Lena Goldfields?

COTTON IMPORTS.

Mr. BAILEY: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government propose to take steps to prevent the continued increase of the importations of cotton piece-goods into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there has been some increase in imports of cotton piece-goods into this country. It is open to the manufacturers concerned to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee with a view to increased duties on these goods. I would point out, however, that retained imports of cotton piece-goods amount to a fraction of 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom production of similar goods.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: In view of the rapid increase in the importation of foreign cotton piece-goods into this country, is not this a question for prohibition and not to be put off in this way?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That question ought to be addressed to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Would my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee have the power to prohibit goods coming into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, they only have the power to advise, and we always consider their advice.

Mr. PALING: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make an agreement so that we can sell everything to all countries of the world and buy nothing back?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (AIRCRAFT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the strength of the South African Union in aeroplanes, civil and/or military; and the annual cost of that service in the latest South African Budget?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: According to the Annual Report of the Department of Defence of the Union of South Africa for 1933, there were 65 civil aircraft registered in the Union as at the 30th June, 1933. As regards military aircraft, the information given in the League of Nations Armaments Year Book for 1934 relates to the year 1931; the number of military aeroplanes is there shown as 66, made up of 38 capable of use in war in commission or in immediate reserve with operational units, and 28 in commission on the training establishment not capable of use in war. In the Union Budget for the year ended 31st March, 1935, an amount of £81,337 has been included as provision for civil aviation (including a sum of £74,000 in respect of Imperial Airways Service), and a total of £134,000 has been included as provision for the Union Air Force.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain up-to-date figures; and may I ask whether the Union Government are keeping us informed—our Air Ministry—as to what their air strength is?

Mr. THOMAS: We are in contact with the Dominion Government on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRATION POLICY.

Brigadier-General NATION: 3 and 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he has received any communications from the Dominions regarding the recommendations contained in the report of the inter-Departmental Committee on Migration Policy; and whether any of them are prepared to fall in with those recommendations;
(2) whether any steps have been taken to set up the advisory bodies recommended in the inter-Departmental Committee report for advising him on migration and to co-ordinate the administration of migration policy; and, if so, whether he can give the names of the members?

Mr. THOMAS: The Government do not propose to reach any immediate conclusion as to the individual recommendations in the report of the inter-Departmental Committee, but copies of the report have been sent to the Dominion Governments concerned and to the State Governments in Australia, and their observations are being invited. I also anticipate that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will have opportunities of informal discussion concerning the report with the Commonwealth and State Governments in Australia and with the Government of New Zealand. The views of voluntary organisations and others connected with the work of migration in this country are also being ascertained.

Brigadier-General NATION: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question with regard to the advisory bodies recommended in the report; are they to be set up in the meanwhile?

Mr. THOMAS: The whole question of migration, in my judgment at least, is dependent upon opportunities being afforded in the Dominions to give to migrants a fair chance, and I do not propose to encourage people to leave this country unless I am satisfied that they have a fair chance. That is the broad general principle.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not the whole thing depend upon land being available?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, and opportunities to use the land.

Brigadier-General NATION: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has considered the various individual schemes for British community family settlements submitted to him by Brigadier-General Hornby, of the Hornby farms, Lethbridge, Canada; and whether he has consulted the Canadian Government as to the question whether these schemes are regarded by them as being practical and acceptable?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, I have not thought it desirable, in advance of any general discussion with the Canadian Government as to migration policy, to consult them regarding individual schemes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the AngloRussian Trade Agreement has resulted in the export of herring to Russia, since January, 1934, reaching the expectations of those representatives of the Scottish herring fishing industry who pressed for the agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Russian purchases of herring since the signature of the Anglo Russian temporary commercial agreement have amounted to 70,000 barrels. The Scottish herring industry not unnaturally would have liked to have secured further orders.

Sir M. SUETER: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Russian Government is buying from the Dutch, against partial payment in salt, 25,000 tons of herring; and whether this transaction has been facilitated by a Russo-Dutch Trade Agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen a newspaper report to this effect, but I am informed that the quantity involved was 25,000 barrels not tons. So far as I am aware no trade agreement has been concluded between the Netherlands and Soviet Governments.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government have considered the report of the Sea-Fish Commission on the herring industry; and whether he can
say what steps they intend to take with regard to the Commission's recommendations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The report of the Sea-fish Commission on the herring industry is receiving careful consideration. I cannot at present make any statement as to the action to be taken on the recommendations of the report.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that the delay in formulating the policy of the Government on this important matter is causing some embarrassment to the industry, and can he tell us when he will be able to announce the Government's decision, or at any rate give some idea as to their attitude towards the Committee's recommendations?

Sir G. COLLINS: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, we have been in consultation with the interests concerned, and that only some 12 days ago, and I would ask him to infer from that that there has been no delay so far as the Government are concerned.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is some months now since these recommendations were published, and may we not expect from the Government some indication of whether the recommendations may meet with any acceptance on their part?

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: In view of the fact that the industry represented at the conference to which my right hon. Friend has referred was unanimous—[HON. MEMBERS:" Oh, no."]—with certain very small modifications—in supporting the proposals, would not my right hon. Friend at least give us the assurance that the Government propose to produce a Bill embodying those proposals in principle?

Mr. LOFTUS: Can we have an assurance that the Bill will be introduced shortly?

Viscountess ASTOR: Could the right hon. Gentleman ask not only Members of the House of Commons but people generally in the country to make a conscientious effort to eat more herring?

Sir G. COLLINS: In regard to the three supplementary questions of my hon.
Friends, I can assure them that the Government are fully seized of the urgency of this matter, and that there will be no delay whatever.

Sir M. WOOD: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement as to the results of the guarantee given to drifter owners for last summer herring fishing season?

Sir G. COLLINS: A sum of £11,780 has been paid by the Fishery Board for Scotland in respect of 324 vessels under the scheme of assistance. A few cases are still under consideration.

Mr. H. STEWART: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the recommendation of the Fishery Board for Scotland relating to the experimental delineation of the Firth of Forth for the more harmonious and efficient prosecution of herring fishing by drift and ring-net boats during the winter season; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: A by-law dealing with the question of ring-net fishing in part of the Firth of Forth has been made by the Fishery Board for Scotland and submitted to me for confirmation. Until the period for the lodging of representations regarding the by-law has expired I cannot say what action I propose to take in the matter.

Mr.STEWART: Before the right hon. Gentleman takes a decision, and a decision contrary to the recommendations of the Fishery Board, will he meet a deputation representing the united interests of the drift-net fishermen of the Firth of Forth and elsewhere?

Sir G. COLLINS: The matter has been very fully considered, and, if the hon. Member thinks that I have not all the information before me to enable me to come to a decision, I will favourably consider his suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (GRAIN CARGOES).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Merchant Shipping Act will come up for review, and if it is intended to alter the provisions, with
regard to the maximum penalty, in a court of summary jurisdiction for failure to take the necessary precautions in loading a ship with a grain cargo?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I said in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag) on the 15th May, the question of altering the maximum penalty to be imposed for failure to take the proper precautions to prevent grain cargoes from shifting will be considered when the Merchant Shipping Act comes up for review.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Merchant Shipping Act is coming up for review?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIXED INVESTMENT TRUSTS.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to assist the London Stock Exchange in its efforts to prevent exploitation of the investing public by abuse of Stock Exchange facilities, he will, before amending the Companies Act, 1929, request the committee of the London Stock Exchange to provide him with their suggestions for safeguards in the flotation and management of fixed investment trusts?

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider introducing legislation when amending the Companies Acts so as to require that, before the London Stock Exchange Committee grant quotations to the shares of fixed investment trusts, it shall be compulsory for managers of those trusts to publish profit-and-loss accounts and balance sheets showing management and other expenses for all invitations for subscriptions for such shares, and to make it clear to the public that the trustees, whose duties are restricted to being custodians of the securities and to ensuring that the number of units is correct, are not responsible for the management?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friends have been noted for investigation when the amendment of the Companies Act is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects an amendment of the Companies Act to be under consideration?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is constantly under review, but I cannot give any date when an amending Bill will be introduced.

Captain RAMSAY: Has my right hon. Friend any information which proves that with offers of subscription of this kind of stock a large section of the public is deceived by the form of the prospectus as to who are the real managers?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot say as to the deception which may or may not be practised on the general public. A point of that kind is one which must be taken into consideration in amending the Companies Act.

Captain RAMSAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman call upon the Stock Exchange Committee to furnish a report on the subject in order that he may consider the Amendment of the Companies Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

FORAGE CONTRACTS.

Mr. RHYS: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether home-grown hay is specified in War Office contracts for forage?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Yes, Sir, home-grown hay is at present specified.

Mr. RHYS: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the farming community to the advantage which this action on the part of the War Office confers on them?

Mr. HACKING: I hope that my answer will receive the necessary publicity.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why British horses are guaranteed British produce while British soldiers are guaranteed only foreign or Imperial produce?

TRAVELLING WARRANTS (OFFICERS).

Sir BASIL PETO: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office
whether it is intended to rescind the amendment of Army Allowance Regulations made last year, under which third class warrant only is granted to officers travelling on duty below the rank of lieutenant-colonel?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir.

Sir B. PETO: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this petty economy might now be abandoned, seeing the altered position of the country; and does he not agree that it is clearly detrimental to the interests of the Services, and causes unnecessary unpleasantness and inconvenience to officers who have to travel under this Order?

Mr. HACKING: As my hon. Friend knows, the decision was taken by the Government, and it applies not only to the War Office but also to other Service Departments, and also to the Civil Service, and so it would be quite impossible for one Department to take independent action.

ARMY HORSES, EGYPT.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 34.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of Army horses sold in Egypt after the War; whether he can give any estimate of the numbers still alive in that country; and whether he will consider including a small grant in his Estimates for next year in order that these horses may be purchased and put out of their misery?

Mr. HACKING: In the six years 1919 to 1924, approximately 11,000 Army horses were sold in Egypt and Palestine; but I have no means of estimating the number still alive. I regret that Army funds could not be expended on their repurchase, but grants have been made from time to time from non-public funds at the disposal of the Army Council to a private society, the Old War Horse Fund, Cairo, which deals with this matter.

Mr. RADFORD: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is unworthy treatment to mete out to the creatures that helped us to win the War?

Mr. HACKING: I am only prepared to deal with the position as I find it, and I imagine that very few of these horses are alive now.

FOODSTUFFS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the principal articles included in the £44,600 worth of foodstuffs purchased from foreign sources for the use of the Army?

Mr. HACKING: The principal items are preserved meat, tinned salmon and bacon.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why so much is spent on things like tinned salmon and bacon?

Mr. HACKING: I have already said, in answer to another question, that the figure mentioned represents only 7 per cent. of the total foodstuffs purchased by the War Office, and that there is a substantial preference given to British and Empire goods. Perhaps I may take the example of bacon. If the quantity of bacon which we purchased from foreign sources had had to be purchased elsewhere, it would have meant having to pay 100 per cent. more for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

BRACKEN.

Mr. H. STEWART: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the committee, of inquiry has yet furnished its report on the bracken question in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir. The tests to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend of 24th July have been completed, and I understand that while the appearance of the treated areas is promising, it would be premature at this stage to say that definite conclusions have been reached as to the efficacy of the different methods employed.

Mr. STEWART: In order to assist the sheep farming industry in Scotland might not the interim findings of the Committee be now published, so as to be available for advice and consultation in reference to next year's work?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will favourably consider that point.

RATING ASSESSMENT, HADDINGTON.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the case reported at Haddington on 20th September, where the local assessment committee had endeavoured to increase the assessable value of a house on the ground that the house had been wired for electric light; and whether he is prepared to take steps to safeguard people who have their houses wired from the risk of being penalised by higher assessments?

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that the case to which my hon. Friend refers was that of a house in Haddington, the owner-occupier of which was successful in an appeal to the East Lothian Valuation Committee against an increase of £2 made by the assessor in the annual value of the house. Having regard to the provisions in the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts for the making of appeals, I have no reason to consider that the interests of house owners or occupiers are not adequately safeguarded.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with assessment committees in Scotland as to the undesirability of their raising assessments when people indulge in the use of such popular commodities?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir, I must leave that matter in their hands.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is not this an argument in favour of relieving all improvements from increases of assessment and taxation?

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Lord SCONE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state in detail the allocation of the £137,500 provided for the improvement of Scottish rural water supplies, giving in each case the amount to be provided from the grant and by the local authority concerned, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows (a) the allocation of grants provisionally offered under the Rural Water Supplies Act, 1934, to local authorities in Scotland, (b) the estimated resultant cost to be met out of local rates, and (c) the grant expressed as a percentage of the total estimated cost of each scheme.

EGGS AND POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. H. STEWART: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to improve the position of the poultry industry in Scotland in view of the unprofitable season through which poultry-keepers have just passed?

Sir G. COLLINS: The reports of the Scottish and English Reorganisation Commissions which are now examining the question of the future organisation of the eggs and poultry industry will, it is expected, be submitted at an early date, and immediately thereaf ter the Great Britain Commission will consider the question of regulation of imports. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Press notice of 23rd September announcing the arrangements made for the restriction of supplies of imported eggs pending the receipt of the reports of the Reorganisation Commissions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT MUNITIONS (DISPOSAL).

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the evidence given by Captain John Ball, managing director of the Soley Armament Company, Limited, described as contractors to the War Department and Air Ministry, at the senatorial inquiry in America, in which it was stated that his firm had available among other articles the following: about 1,000,000 rifles, 20,000 Lewis machine guns with spare parts, 8,000 of the same guns of the aeroplane pattern, 6,000 Vickers guns, 4,000 Webley revolvers, 5,000 Smith and Wesson revolvers, 10,000 Colt revolvers, and 303 calibre ammunition for rifles and machine guns amounting to 120,000,000 rounds in good condition: whether he will state the terms of the arrangement with the company; and what steps are taken to prevent the sale of armaments indiscriminately to foreign countries in the interests of money making?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Soley Armament Company are on the list of War Department contractors who are eligible to tender for surplus stores including arms and ammunition. There is no special arrangement direct with the Company in regard to the articles mentioned in the question, some of which it is understood are not
from War Department stocks, but the Company act as representatives of "B.S.A. Guns, Ltd." who at present hold under agreement the right of purchase and re-sale of War Department surplus stocks of rifles and Lewis guns. The hon. Member will appreciate that it is contrary to custom to publish the terms of contracts, but I can assure him that no sale can be made except to approved destinations and on the grant of an export licence by the Board of Trade. These safeguards are very rigidly administered, and, during the past four years, rifles and Lewis guns to the value of only some £25,000 have been sold for export. As regards the last part of the question, the machinery of the export licensing of arms ensures effective control over the supply to foreign countries of arms from the United Kingdom.

Mr. MANDER: Apart from that question, does not the Prime Minister think it is very undesirable that such enormous powers for harm should be in the hands of private individuals?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member put a question to me and, having had his answer, begins another with "apart from that question." He must put his new question on the Paper.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Was this the firm that supplied the rifles and machine guns to the Socialist party in Spain for their recent rebellion?

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL RESEARCH.

Mr. T. SMITH: 46.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Fuel Research Board has been or will be asked to report upon what is stated to be a new carbonisation process of the National Coke and Oil Company, Limited; and whether the report, if any, is regarded as satisfactory?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No formal application has been received from the National Coke and Oil Company, Limited, for a test of their process. The Director of Fuel Research has discussed the question of a test with representatives of the company, and the plant has been visited by officers of the Fuel Research Station to determine how a test might be carried out, but in the absence of a test no report can be made by the Director of Fuel Research.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In the interests not only of the mining industry but of the investing public will the right hon. Gentleman try to obtain a real test as a guide to those who are interested in the question?

Mr. BALDWIN: We have been perfectly willing, but any delay is not the fault of the Government. We have been waiting for a long time, but have heard no further from this company.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SINKING FUND PAYMENTS.

Mr. DAVID MASON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase in the revenue as a result of changes in the National Debt, there is any prospect of a resumption of payments for account of the Sinking Fund?

Mr. COOPER: I would refer the hon. Member to the passage in the last Budget Speech in which my right hon. Friend dealt very fully with Sinking Fund policy and addressed a clear warning to the House as to the future.

Mr. MASON: In view of the fact that a considerable time has elapsed since the last Budget statement and that money is practically unlendable in the City of London to-day, will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider his attitude as to the advisability of again reviewing the subject?

Mr. COOPER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is no doubt considering the matter, but I do not think there will be any statement until the next Budget statement.

TREASURY BILLS (INTEREST).

Mr. MABANE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the average rate of interest paid in respect of the floating debt during the current financial year to date; and the difference between that rate and the rate paid on the floating debt during the last financial year?

Mr. COOPER: The average rate of interest on Treasury Bills issued by tender during the current financial year to date is 15s. 10d. compared with 8s. 6d. during the corresponding period of the
last financial year. The rate over the whole of last financial year was 12s. 6d.

Mr. MABANE: Do not these figures indicate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to be disappointed as to the cost, which will be considerably more during the current financial year than it was last year?

Mr. COOPER: I think it is too early to draw any conclusion.

BUDGET OUTCOME (TAX BURDEN).

Mr. MABANE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the general alarm at the prospect of another large surplus of revenue over expenditure accruing at the end of the current financial year; whether he is aware that this is being interpreted as evidence of over-taxation; and whether, in the circumstances, he is prepared to propose any measures to secure an immediate lightening of the present burden of taxation?

Mr. COOPER: It is much too early in the year to draw any firm conclusion regarding the final outcome of the Budget. The position is satisfactory, but I know of no reason at this time for anticipating alarmingly favourable results. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUSTEE SECURITIES.

Mr. WHITE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the changed conditions of the last two years, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to consider de novo in what securities trustees should be authorised to invest and what procedure should be adopted for making additions to or deletions from the list of such securities?

Mr. TOUCHE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the change in investment conditions which has taken place since the report of the Cave Trustees Securities Committee, he will reconsider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the rules governing the status of trustee securities?

Mr. COOPER: A review of the list of trustee securities does not suggest that there has been any substantial change within the last 10 years in the aggregate
volume of nominal capital available for holding by trustees. In all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not propose at the present time to adopt either of the suggestions made to him.

Mr. WHITE: May I 'ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will be prepared to give further consideration to this matter if further reasons for and the desirability of a change are brought before him?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: As there is a suggestion in this question that there should be an addition to the supply of trustee securities, will the Financial Secretary say whether there is any evidence of a shortage of trustee securities in view of the fact that there are now available for the public £6,000,000,000 of British Government trustee securities as compared with £600,000,000 of similar securities before the War?

Mr. COOPER: I think those figures are fairly correct. In regard to the earlier supplementary question, naturally a matter of this kind will continue to engage the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it will always be considered in the light of the financial position at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BOYS (SAFETY TRAINING).

Captain SPENCER: 55.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make a statement with regard to recent developments and progress in the safety training of boys employed in and about coal mines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): During the evening school sessions 1933–34, courses of safety instruction for pit lads were held at about 200 centres. Over 9,000 boys were enrolled, and about 5,200 of them completed the full course. At nearly all the centres safety badges or certificates to the total number of about 5,000 were awarded to boys who qualified in an oral examination conducted by a panel of independent examiners; and meetings for the public presentation of these awards were held in the locality or at the Buxton Research Station. As regards the new session, which commenced this autumn,
I am not yet in a position to give full information as to the numbers enrolled, but every effort is being made, with the co-operation of all sections of the industry, to develop this important work still further, and I confidently expect a substantial increase in the number of classes, more particularly in South Wales and Scotland.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any holding up of this matter owing to lack of funds?

Mr. BROWN: No, Sir it is a matter of agreement between the local education authority and those concerned.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, since the adoption of this means of conveying instruction, there has been any diminution in the accident rates among boys?

Mr. BROWN: As the lion. Member knows, this is an attempt to create a. safety mind in the young boys going into the pits, and it must be a long-range policy.

SAFETY CONFERENCES.

Captain SPENCER: 56.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the safety conferences initiated by one of his predecessors are still being held; and whether he will make a statement on this subject?

Mr. E. BROWN: The programme of safety conferences initiated in 1931 by one of my predecessors, then the hon. Member for Linlithgow, was completed by his successor, the hon. Member for the Bodmin Division (Mr. Isaac Foot). Eight conferences were held in the principal coalfields, and the average attendance at each was over 2,000. I appreciate the value of such conferences, and in June last I held a similar conference at Swansea to discuss certain problems of silicosis, but the proceedings at the earlier conferences, which ranged over the whole problem of safety in mines, were necessarily of a very general character, and their chief and very useful purpose was to provide a fresh stimulus for lectures, demonstrations and meetings of a more intimate kind, in which they were very successful. For detailed information as to the substantial progress made in these and kindred ways I would refer the hon. Member to the
annual reports published by my Department and the Safety in Mines Research Board.

OUTPUT.

Miss WARD: 57.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the total tonnage raised in the nine months ended 30th September, 1934, compared with the nine months ended September, 1933; also the total tonnage exported during the same periods?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the nine months ended September, 1934, the output of saleable coal in Great Britain was 163,217,000 tons, and the quantity of coal exported was 29,637,000 tons. The corresponding figures for the same period of 1933 were 151,414,000 tons and 28,856,000 tons.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman state the relative numbers of wage-earners in these two periods?

Mr. BROWN: I should not like to do so without notice, but, taking normal figures, there would be about 7,000 more than last year.

RELIEF FUNDS (UNUSED BALANCES).

Major PROCTER: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number and amount of unused balances subscribed. for the relief of miners' dependants; whether he will institute an actuarial investigation of such funds; and, in the event of there being no beneficiaries, whether he will take such action as may be necessary so that these dormant balances may be used for the relief of dependants of miners killed in recent mining disasters?

Mr. E. BROWN: The inquiry made and the return issued by my Department in 1925 covered 73 funds. Of these, 19 were found to have exhausted their resources, two had already transferred their surplus to other funds, 39 expected to have no surplus, while six which still had dependants and five which had not were assisting other funds. Of the remaining two, one has since, at the suggestion of the Mines Department, transferred its surplus to the Central Association of Miners' Permanent Relief Societies, and the other is being administered by a per manent provident society.
The total balances in hand in 1925 were about £430,000, and, unfortunately, an impression has been conveyed in the
Press that this money is all surplus. Actually the total surpluses among all these funds were not then expected to be more than £30,000. Recent inquiries do not indicate any material change in this position, and only one fund expects to be left with a definite substantial surplus. I understand that the trustees of that fund have had the disposal of this ultimate surplus under consideration.
I have no power to institute an actuarial investigation. The unification of the funds would require legislation, and I am not sure that it is desirable. There are certain advantages in local funds as against a single national fund. In any event, legislation would presumably need to be of a general character, and not confined to colliery disaster funds.

Major PROCTER: Has not the time come for the Minister of Mines to gather all these fragments together and establish one central fund Is my hon. Friend aware that in my division 51 years ago to-day a disaster occurred, and there is still an accumulated balance?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot debate this subject at Question Time.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that there are 17 widows in Conisborough left after the Cadeby disaster, for whom no funds are available, will the Minister try to obtain some of the surplus money from other funds for the purpose of assisting them?

Mr. BROWN: I shall be happy to discuss that question with my hon. Friend, but, of course, I can only make suggestions to the trustees of funds.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to bring that information more up to date, seeing that the figures relate to the year 1925, and various changes have taken place since then?

Mr. BROWN: I am afraid my hon. Friend did not follow the whole of my answer, which was a very long one. I would point out that this return, which is very complete, was only obtained by me with the voluntary co-operation of the trustees concerned. We have made an examination quite recently, within the last four years, of some of the principal funds, and sufficient change is not shown to warrant a general investigation being undertaken again.

Mr. MOLSON: Arising out of the Minister's reply—

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow any more supplementaries on this question.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines what information he has as to the number of public funds that have been initiated in connection with the various colliery and other disasters in Wales during the past 60 years, giving the amounts subscribed, distributed, and the balance, if any; also the liability in each case; and will he state what is proposed to be done with the dormant balances?

Mr. BROWN: The return issued by my Department in 1925 showed that of 13 funds raised in Wales since 1874, 11 did not expect to have any surplus; one had already handed over a surplus of £5,383 in 1905, to the Monmouth and South Wales Miners' Permanent Provident Society, and the other, which expected ultimately to have a surplus of £2,500, was already being administered by the same Society. The total balances in hand amounted at that time to £90,320, practically all of which, as I have indicated, was needed to meet commitments, and no surpluses are anticipated. I have no further information as to the amounts subscribed or distributed, or as to liabilities; nor have I any information regarding relief funds raised in respect of disasters other than those at collieries.

Mr. MOLSON: Is it not the case that the Charity Commissioners have power to authorise the transfer of unexpended funds from one purpose to another, and that therefore there is no difficulty?

Mr. BROWN: I could not answer for the Charity Commissioners.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that application has been made to the Charity Commissioners and they have refused?

Mr. BROWN: In some cases transfers have been made.

BOLDON COLLIERY, COUNTY DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 61.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, during the last three months when Boldon colliery, County Durham, was closed, any part of the quota allocated has been sold and, if so, how many tons; and what amount per ton was received?

Mr. E. BROWN: This information is not available to my Department. I would point out to the hon. Member that Boldon Colliery forms part of the undertaking owned by the Harton Coal Company, and the quota is allocated to that undertaking as a whole, and not in respect of the individual collieries that comprise the undertaking.

Mr. BATEY: Could not the Minister obtain information as to whether any part of the quota has been sold during the last three months, in view of the stoppage of this colliery, where 1,861 men were employed?

Mr. BROWN: The answer to that question is that Section 8 of the Act of 1930, which was passed by a Labour Government, precludes the publication of information regarding a particular undertaking. I can only do that by getting the owners' consent.

Mr. BATEY: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Boldon colliery, County Durham, was closed down by the owners three months ago; that it is estimated that about 7,000 people are dependent on this colliery, about 2,000 being children; that, in view of Durham being classed as a distressed area, there is need for as much employment being provided as possible; and will he therefore include among the measures to be taken for the relief of this distressed area such steps as will lead to the immediate reopening of this colliery?

Mr. BROWN: The answer to the first three parts of the question is "Yes" in each case. With regard to the last part, I do not understand what measures the hon. Member thinks that I could take. I am informed that this mine would be restarted forthwith if agreement could be reached between the management and the workmen on certain matters at present in dispute.

Mr. BATEY: Then may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, because the question was put down to the Prime Minister and transferred to the Minister of Mines?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hall-Caine.

DEPUTIES.

Mr. BATEY: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that
attempts are being made by the owners of certain collieries to change a class of labour known as deputies to sub-overmen; and, in view of the large number of accidents in mines and the urgent need for more, rather than less, attention being give to safety, will he immediately bring in a short Bill to compel the continuance of the deputy class of labour?

Mr. E. BROWN: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the position at Boldon Colliery in Durham, where, previously to the present stoppage, the deputies were employed on a daily wage. understand that the management now offer to employ them on the basis of a regular weekly wage, which, with other facilities offered, would amount to substantially more than their previous average earnings. The practice of paying deputies a weekly wage is in force at other mines in Durham, and is a common one in other parts of the country. It does not affect the deputies' duties in the mine. So long as the deputies properly perform the duties assigned to this class of official by the Coal Mines Act, I have no power to intervene in the matter of their conditions of employment, and I have no evidence that there is any need in the interests of safety generally for me to have such power.

Mr. BATEY: Has not the Minister made inquiries to find out that the employers not only want to pay a weekly wage, but want to abolish a class of safety workmen; and is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at the present day there is an urgent need for more safety in mines rather than less?

Mr. LAWSON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the men concerned do not want the deputies to be officials, for the simple reason that they are members of the union, and they find that they will not be in a clear position to report freely and independently if they are officials?

Mr. BROWN: With regard to the first supplementary question, the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that, under Seciton 14 (2,b) of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, mines in Durham and Northumberland are exempt from the requirements as to firemen, examiners or deputies. With regard to the other point, I would point out that this, surely, is a matter that should be settled in the area con-
cerned, and not on the Floor of this House.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is contrary to the practice of the area, and that, as a matter of fact, the coalowners themselves generally are not wedded to this particular method?

Mr. BROWN: I am aware that it is not a common thing in Durham, though there are other mines where is obtains, and it is a common practice in other areas.

Mr. BATEY: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall raise the question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 65.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the number of cases which frequently arise where pension claims are refused on the ground that the opinion of the local medical practitioner as to the attributability of a man's condition to his war service has been overruled by the medical advisers of his Department, he will consider the desirability of setting up a panel of medical referees who can provide an independent expert tribunal to settle such cases?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): My responsibility to Parliament would not admit of my delegating the power of decision in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend, but I would remind him that arrangements are in force which enable me to obtain the independent advice of eminent specialists, nominated by the Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, in cases which present serious doubt or difficulty on the evidence.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Are the people making these applications aware of the privilege?

Major TRYON: As the system has been in force for some years, I have no doubt that it is generally known.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 66.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for pensions have been made to his Department during the last five years by ex-service men who have become
blind; and how many of such applications have been entertained and how many refused?

Major TRYON: I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give all the figures asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I may say that during the last five years 86 cases have been admitted to pension in respect of eye disabilities resulting from war service. Of these two were cases of total blindness.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that after the age of 40 or 45 it becomes increasingly necessary to see if there is any link between the blindness of to-day and disabilities incurred during the War through gas or wounds?

Major TRYON: The fact that we are granting so many pensions so long after the War shows that we are keeping in close touch with this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANNOCK CHASE (DEER).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 67.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that the slaughter of deer on Cannock Chase is being carried on indiscriminately and on a scale which will result in their complete extermination in a short time; and whether he will take steps to prevent this eventuality.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): In so far as the question relates to the Forestry Commission plantations on Cannock Chase the position is that to prevent further serious damage to trees the stock of deer, which have become too numerous, is being reduced. The most humane methods are being employed. There is no possibility of the deer being exterminated.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (SPEED LIMIT).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state a date after which the speed limit for built-up areas will become general and be enforced; and whether he is taking any measures to deal with municipalities, or other authorities, which have taken as yet no effective measures for the protection of the pedestrian in
accordance with his recently published scheme?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): With regard to the first part of this question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my hon. Friend gave on Thursday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie). As regards the second part, my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the local authorities to the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, which require them to submit to him schemes for the establishment of pedestrian crossing places, and he understands that the local authorities generally are engaged in the preparation of schemes.

Sir C. OMAN: Will measures be taken to deal with the Oxford local council which, three months after the introduction of the scheme, have taken no effective measures for the introduction of schemes of the kind which have been so useful in London in their most congested streets?

Captain HUDSON: I will draw my hon. Friend's attention to that fact.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the Prime Minister say how far it is intended to go to-night, and is he aware that the Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended every night since the House resumed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present say how far, but later on, when progress has been made, I am sure the usual channels will be only too glad to come to an arrangement.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman at any rate say that Part II of the Bill will not be taken after 11 o'clock as it is a matter of such great public interest?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot make any more definite statement than I have made. It will depend on the progress made.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 41.

Division No. 383.]
AYES
[3.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McCorguodale, M. S.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh`d)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKie, John Hamilton


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Apsley, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Magnay, Thomas


Assheton, Ralph
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maitland, Adam


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Goff, Sir Park
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Granville, Edgar
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Martin, Thomas B.


Barrie, Sir Charles Cougar
Graves, Marjorie
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Greene, William P. C.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bann, Sir Arthur Shirley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Blindell, James
Hales, Harold K.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Borodale, Viscount.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitcheson, G. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harris, Sir Percy
Moreing, Adrian C.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hartland, George A.
Morgan, Robert H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison. G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morrison, William Shephard


Browne, Captain A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Munro, Patrick


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Burnett, John George
Hepworth, Joseph
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Nunn, William


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Carver, Major William H.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkinson, Austin
Patrick. Colin M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peaks, Osbert


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Pearson, William G.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, Charles U.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm.,W)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Percy, Lord Eustace


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Petherick, M.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Christle, James Archibald
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hurd, Sir Percy
Pike, Cecil F.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Purbrick, R.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jamieson, Douglas
Pybus, Sir John


Conant, R. J. E.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Radford, E. A.


Cook, Thomas A.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooke, Douglas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooper, A. Duff
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Copeland, Ida
Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Craven-Ellis, William
Knight, Holford
Rathbone, Eleanor


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rea, Walter Russell


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reld, David D. (County Down)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lambert. Rt. Hon. George
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Law, Sir Alfred
Remer, John R.


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Barnard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leckie, J. A.
Rickards, George William


Curry, A. C.
Loam-Jones, John
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Robinson, John Roland


Doran, Edward
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter


Duggan, Hubert John
Locker- Lampson. Rt Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, Pierce C.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Elmley, Viscount
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mabane, William
Salt, Edward W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard




Scone, Lord
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A G.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)
Stones, James
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Strauss, Edward A.
Weymouth. Viscount


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
White, Henry Graham


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(p'dd'gt'n,S.)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomas, Rt. Han. J. H. (Derby)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Soper, Richard
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Cilve. Lieut.-Colonel George


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswlnlord)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stevenson, James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)





NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Allen


Banfield, John William
Hicks, Ernest George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Dagger, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dabble, William
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, Wilfred

COMMON INFORMER.

3.58 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish proceedings by way of penal action when initiated by a common informer.
I beg the House not to regard the bringing in of this Bill as a waste of time, because, if the House accedes to my Motion and allows the Bill to be printed and published this Session, it will have much more chance of being brought in next Session and of becoming law than if it were then presented as a novelty. The common informer is a private person who sues to recover statutory penalties for his own benefit. Nothing in this Bill, which is a simple Bill of two Clauses, will affect penal actions initiated by the State or by a person who is himself aggrieved. It simply prevents penal actions being brought by a common informer who has no interest whatever in the action except his own cupidity. There are cases where informers have merits. There are times when informers do services to the public at a risk to themselves and perform a public duty, but the common informer has no merit whatever. He is, in fact, the complete sneak.
The reason why these actions were originally allowed to be initiated by common informers has long since passed away. They originated at a time when Parliament could not trust the Executive, and thought it was as well to give an informer a personal interest in giving information. That reason has long since passed away, but the common informer remains. He has exercised his craft in relation to a great many Statutes against which I say nothing. There is a law, for instance, imposing penalties on a Member of Parliament who votes while his firm is executing contracts for the State. I say nothing against it, but it is against public policy that a common informer should recover penalties for himself personally, as he did in a case in 1913 when he recovered £13,000 and costs against a Member of Parliament who had inadvertently offended against this Statute. In 1917, another common informer sued a Member of this House to recover penalties amounting to £29,000 for having advertised Government bonds in his newspaper. In 1923 another Statute, which enables a common informer to recover penalties against members of local authorities who sat without having returned their full expenses, led to an action to recover £550 and £800
against two councillors at Morpeth who had inadvertently offended against that Act.
The common informer has been most active in regard to the Lord's Day Observance Act, 1781. For some generations this Act was thought only to apply to theological debates. It was not recognised that it applied to ordinary amusements or entertainments. In 1869 a common informer sued for penalties under this Act with regard to some lectures upon "Science as the handmaid of religion." He sought to show that this was a public entertainment. The judges who heard the case held, "We are not amused" and the informer lost that case. In 1875 an action was brought against the Brighton Aquarium for exhibiting fish on Sundays. It was pleaded in its defence that this could not be deemed an entertainment as 17 bandsmen performed sacred music while the fish were fed. The Court held that it was an entertainment, and the informer won the penalties. In 1894 the Leeds Sunday Society were sued by a common informer for penalties in having organised a lecture by the French writer, Max O'Rell. When the Court heard that he had told a story about an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotch-man, they at once concluded it was an entertainment and awarded the penalty.
It is a very ironic thing that to-day in London people can go to see the cinema. You can travel wherever you want to go by train or car and play any game you like, but if I ask people to come to a lecture by me on, say, the blessings of the National Government and charge a penny admission, I can be shot at. It is, in fact, legalised blackmail. In August last all the stars of the theatrical and cinema world in the neighbourhood of Manchester intended to give a garden party for charity on a Sunday afternoon. A man who lived over 180 miles away gave notice to the police of the infringement of the Act of 1781, and threatened to bring an action for penalties That is what I call legalised blackmail. If the Act remains on the Statute Book, let the police and Home Office enforce it, but why should any common informer enforce it? The proper informer is someone who represents the public. The Sunday Observance Act, 1677, is still on the Statute Book. If you trade on Sunday or try to "sell or cry milk before 9 a.m." you are
liable to be sued under the Act, but the penalties do not go to the common informer. The penalty of 5s. goes to the poor of the parish, and if you do not pay it you have to sit two hours in the stocks, but, the pleasure of exacting this penalty and any pecuniary result go to the State. and not to the common informer. I suggest that the time has come when spying in this country should no longer be a subsidised profession. We all know those lines in "Rule Britannia "—
The nations not so blessed as thee, Shall in their turns to tyrants fall.
The common informer is a very fit person to be employed under tyrants and dictators. In my submission, the time is roast when the common informer has any place in the life of a free nation, and I hope that the House will agree to the introduction of this Bill, which does not interfere with any of the Statutes at all, but simply deprives the common informer of a right to which he has no moral claim.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Gerald Hurst, Colonel Wedgwood, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Hannon, Captain Fuller, Mr. Gluckstein, Major Mills, Miss Rathbone, Mr. Adams, Mr. Magnay, and Mr. Bailey.

COMMON INFORMER BILL,

"to abolish proceedings by way of penal action when initiated by a common informer," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 14th November, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

Orders of the Day — BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords]

(Except CLAUSE 1.)

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 5th November.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Duration and transfer of Licences and fees in respect of licences and transfers.)

4.6 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, after "revoked," to insert "or cancelled."
The object of this Amendment and the next Amendment in my name is to enable a licensee, if he so desires, to surrender his licence, whereupon it will be cancelled, and will cease to have effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, at the end, to insert:
() The censing authority shall, upon receiving from the holder of a licence for the time being in force a written request in that behalf accompanied by the licence, cancel the licence, which shall thereupon cease to be in force.
() In respect of any application for a licence, such fee, not exceeding ten pounds, as the licensing authority may from time to time fix for their licensing area, shall he payable by the applicant before the hearing of the application, but, if the licence is granted, the fee so paid shall be treated as a payment on account of the first annual payment to be made in respect of the licence under the next following sub-section.
It has been represented to us that there will be considerable expense which will fall upon the local authorities in connection with the licensing of tracks, and it is right that some fee should be exacted for that purpose. A maximum of £10 is suggested.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I would like to know, Sir Dennis, what is your Ruling in regard to the Amendment standing in my name which bears on the same matter—in page 9, line 17, to leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5), and to insert:
(4) no fine, rent, or other sum of money shall be payable for or in respect of a licence.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to discuss that point on this Amendment, he can, no doubt, do so. For his information, I may tell him that I am not proposing to select the Amendment in his name.

Mr. LOGAN: I thought that would be so, and that is why I have risen to object to what is now being placed before the Committee. I do not agree with what is now asked. I am one who feels that further penalties and restrictions are about to be placed on the owners of tracks. You are putting upon them an impossible task in asking them to pay to the extent proposed. When it was a matter of six days, the burden could be easily borne by these people, but that is an entirely different thing when it is a matter of two or three days a week. There may be a possible chance of three days but with a 50 per cent or 60 per cent. reduction—

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: There appear to be two separate issues in the Amendment, one dealing with the surrender of licences and other other with the fee to be paid on application for a licence. They seem to raise two entirely different points, and I would ask, Sir Dennis, whether you would put them separately?

The CHAIRMAN: No, they are down as one Amendment, and I shall put them as one. There is no Amendment to the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. PIKE: Did I understand you to say that you would allow the hon. Member to discuss his own Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: No. I said that an Amendment had been put, and that it was open to him to discuss that Amendment which is now before the Committee.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I call the attention of the Committee to the amazing sentence with which the first Sub-section of the Amendment begins?

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of Order?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly not.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) is, I think, in possession of the Committee, and I do not know whether he wishes to proceed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am quite willing to speak now or afterwards, and I am ready to give way.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better wait until his turn comes. We had better have one speech at a time.

Mr. LOGAN: I really do not know what is the feeling of Members of the Committee with regard to any further taxation or charge upon people in connection with these licences. I feel that it is a matter of injustice, and I appeal to Members of the Committee to consider the position. Your are determining the power which is to be vested in a particular body. Representations have to be made, and questions of character and all these things have to be considered, and then we are told that there is to be an imposition for the holding of such a licence. There is to be a limitation in the earning capacity of the tracks, and, bearing in mind that there will have to be deductions, it is absolutely impossible to concentrate on two days a week so as to benefit the particular tracks. They must have mechanicians and others in regular attendance, and there is no calculation possible at the present moment how they will stand from a financial point of view. I think the Amendment ought to be rejected. I do not think that we ought to allow a charge of this character to be imposed upon the proprietors. We are dealing in an extreme fashion with these people, and I do not think it is fair. Because of that, I am opposed to the Amendment which has been moved by the Home Secretary.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I must protest against the rather amazing lack of good grammar in the first Amendment. It says:
"The licensing authority shall, upon receiving from the holder of a licence for the time being in force a written request in that behalf accompanied by the licence,"
I feel sure that if the Under-Secretary had been a private Member he would have viewed this matter with horror. I hope that between now and the Report stage, for the sake of the purity of Parliamentary language, the Amendment will be redrafted and that we shall get from the Home Office that purity of language which we might expect from the National Government.

4.17 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the local authority will be put to a certain amount of expense, it is proper that the expense should fall upon the industry and not upon the rates. The maximum fee is £10. It cannot be more than that, and it is credited to the interests concerned if they get the licence.

Vice-Admiral, TAYLOR: Is the 1() returned if the licence is not granted?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No.

Colonel GRETTON: I should like to reinforce the appeal mode by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It is rather startling to find an error being made in the grammar of drafting. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider this matter before the Report Stage.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: I shall now call upon the Home Secretary to move in the underlined Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Clause 8, on page 9 of the Bill. In view of the fact that there are on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary a number of small Amendments to the underlined parts of the Clause, it will be for the convenience of the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman is taken as moving in the underlined Subsections as they will read with the Amendments to them which appear on the Order Paper.

4.20 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, to insert:
"(4) In respect of every licence, such annual fee not exceeding fifty pounds as the licensing authority may fix annually shall be payable during the currency of the licence by the person who is for the time being the holder thereof, and the first of such payments shall be made on the day on which the licence takes effect, and subsequent payments shall be made at intervals of twelve months thereafter.
(5) In respect of any transfer of a licence, such fee not exceeding ten pounds, as the licensing authority may from time to time fix for their area shall be payable by the person to whom the licence is transferred.
() Every fee which by virtue of this section is payable by any person shall be recoverable from that person by the licensing authority as a debt due from him to them.
() A standing joint committee who receive any sum in respect of fees paid under
this section, shall pay, or account for, that sum to the county council represented on the committee."
The first Amendments are drafting Amendments with regard to the transfer fees payable. A further Amendment provides that the fees required to be paid shall be recoverable from the person liable by the authority exercising the licensing function. A further Amendment provides that as the county councils are to defray the expenses of the standing joint committees the standing joint committees shall pay to the county councils any fees received by them when they are acting in the capacity of a licensing authority. These are matters of detail and accounting.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the Amendment that has been read from the Chair a manuscript Amendment, or is it on the Order Paper?

The CHAIRMAN: No. If the hon. Member had listened to what I said he would have been able to follow me. The Home Secretary has moved in the underlined words of the Clause on page 9 as they will read with the Amendments made to them which are down in his name on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Fixing of days OM which betting facilities may be provided.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move on page 9, line 29, to leave out from the beginning to "as," in line 31, and to insert:
"Not later than the end of May in each year, every licensing authority shall, subject to the provisions of this section, fix one hundred and four days in the year which begins on the first day of July next following."
I said yesterday that the year would run from July and not from January. It is in order to meet that promise that I move this Amendment.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: On a point of Order. If we accept this Amendment, am I to understand that the various Amendments on the Order Paper with respect to the question of days will be out of order? Will there be no discussion? Am I right in the assumption that the acceptance of
the Home Secretary's Amendment will eliminate discussion on all the subsequent Amendments dealing with the point?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must wait and see.

Mr. PIKE: Can we not have your guidance?

The CHAIRMAN: There is a definite Amendment before the Committee. If the hon. Member or other hon. Members do not agree with the Amendment and wish to alter it, it is for them to raise their point here in this discussion. It will depend entirely upon the fate of this Amendment what will happen to certain Amendments to the later part of the Bill.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: On a point of Order. Inasmuch as the Amendment now submitted by the Home Secretary refers to the number of days and seeing that in Clause 1 the number of days was definitely fixed at 104, is it open to any Member of the Committee to seek now to have that number of days altered?

The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not. We have disposed of Clause 1.

Mr. PIKE: Will it be in order to seek to make the change on the Report stage?

The CHAIRMAN: The Report stage is not a matter with which the Chairman of Ways and Means has to deal.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. I understand that this is the first time that we have had this procedure and the first time that you have had to rule on the point. I understand that this Committee, which is a Committee of the whole House, is definitely debarred in this Committee stage from coming to any decision which conflicts with a decision in Committee upstairs. I am not certain whether the right procedure would not be to recommit Clause 1 so that it could be made to read in accordance with what this Committee of the whole House may desire. It seems to me a strange decision that a Committee upstairs, consisting of something less than 60 Members, should take a Bill to a certain stage and then it should come to a Committee of the whole House to continue the procedure.

The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the hon. Member is reflecting upon
decision of the House. The House has decided to refer to a Committee of the whole House consideration of the Bill other than Clause 1. The hon. Member must not reflect upon that decision.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was not meaning to reflect on the House but to argue as far as I am permitted on the Ruling that you have given. It raises rather an important principle, because it means that we are only allowed in this Committee of the whole House to consider from Clause 2 onwards, and if you persist in your Ruling, apparently, we are not free to discuss or amend the Clauses from Clause 2 onwards in the way we might desire because of what has happened on Clause 1. If I understand your Ruling aright, we can only discuss from Clause 2 onwards in the light of a decision already taken by an inferior tribunal in respect of Clause 1. I want to know whether that is a correct interpretation of your Ruling?

CHAIRMAN: I doubt whether the hon. Member is strictly accurate in referring to a Committee upstairs as an inferior tribunal. The fact is that the Bill having had its Second Reading has to go through the Committee stage. Part of the Bill, namely, Clause 1, has been through the necessary Committee stage. That is an accomplished fact, and whatever the Committee may be which considers the rest of the Bill it has to recognise the fact that Clause 1 has been through the Committee stage and has been reported to the House, as amended.

4.28 p.m.

LOGAN: As my name is down to one or two Amendments, I should like your further Ruling. Am I to understand that on the Amendment now before the Committee there is no power vested in this Committee to move an Amendment to it in respect of the number of days, because Clause 1 has been dealt with?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is correct. That is the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot). It would be out of order to move an Amendment which is inconsistent with the Clause that has already passed through the Committee stage.

Mr. LOGAN: I am trying to reconcile myself to the position. When the matter
was mentioned first, if my memory serves me aright, you said that we could deal with it. In what sense can we deal with the question of the number of days, which has been fixed at 104, in Clause 1?

The CHAIRMAN: I have said that hon. Members can deal with the Amendment before the Committee, but they can only deal with it according to the Rules of the House. Hon. Members will realise that the position is exactly the same on this particular point, as if Clause 1 had been passed by this Committee. The Bill has to go through a Committee stage and Clause 1 has been already passed by the Committee which dealt with it.

Mr. HANNON: Are we to understand that in the peculiar circumstances in which this Bill has been brought back to the Floor of the House the decisions of the Committee upstairs affecting a part of the Bill are in the same category as further proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Clause 1 has been through the Committee stage. It really does not matter for our present purpose what Committee took the Committee stage; the Clause has gone through Committee stage. And the Committee stage is now proceeding with regard to the other Clauses.

Mr. LOGAN: I desire to oppose the Amendment. The number of days, 104, are inadequate and unreasonable.

Mr. PIKE: On a point of Order. Has the Home Secretary moved his Amendment? [HON. MEA113ERS: "Yes."]

Mr. LOGAN: We are being asked to accept an Amendment submitted by the Home Secretary, and I am trying to ask the Committee to reject it. That is plain and simple. Hon. Members who have any knowledge whatever of the Debates which took place in Committee will understand that as regards this particular Amendment we have either to accept it or reject it. On the merits or demerits of the number of days it may be a question of the ruling of the Chair as to whether I should be within my province in moving a greater number of days, and it would appear that I should be entirely out of order to do so. Therefore, the Debate in regard to this particular Amendment is confined to a very narrow point. But there is no doubt that the
limitation of the number of days is a matter of great concern to many hon. Members, it is definitely unpalatable, but as it is inserted here it is going to be binding until we reach Report stage. All the Amendments on this point on the Order Paper are non-debatable, simply because the present Amendment will close down all debate on the question of the number of days.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now attempting to discuss a question which has been decided in Committee. If he cannot move an Amendment to the effect he desires, he cannot discuss it. He can oppose this particular Amendment, but he cannot discuss the question of the number of days because that has been already decided by the Committee.

Mr. LOGAN: I bow to your ruling. I am anxious to oppose the Amendment without contravening any Rules of Order, and I am trying my best to get over the difficulty. I am told that I cannot do so without mentioning the number of days, but I think that I can object to the Amendment without giving my reasons. I hope that we shall get the Committee to reject this Amendment without giving reasons—no reasons are possible under your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, to which I submit willingly—but none the less I am anxious to take the little time that is allotted to me to state my opposition to something which appears to me to be in a watertight compartment. That being so oppose the Amendment and I hope a Division will be taken. I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

4.37 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after "days" to insert "for each track in its licensing area."
If my proposal be accepted, the Home Secretary's Amendment will read in this way:
Not later than the end of May in each year, every licensing authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, fix one hundred and four days for each track in its licensing area in the year which begins on the first day of July next following.
The effect of my Amendment is tins. At the moment the Committee have decided, under Clause 1, that we shall only be permitted to have betting on greyhound tracks on 104 days in the year. My Amendment would have the effect of allowing individual track owners to select the two particular days which are most convenient to them. Some of us regret that the number of days has been limited to 104, but we feel that if the Government go further and say that those 104 days shall be days decided by the local licensing authority, it is an unjustifiable interference with the rights and liberties of the people. I am sorry to hear some groans behind me. We have heard a lot about liberty since the House reassembled, and some of us recall that only two short weeks ago the Prime Minister referred to liberty, not in this House, but on a very important occasion, at the National Labour luncheon at the Trocadero Restaurant. Let me quote briefly from the speech of the Prime Minister:
We have seen liberty disappear in nation after nation in Europe. I believe in liberty. Some people say that I have gone outside the bounds of law and order to maintain it. If it is necessary I will do it again. So long as my colleagues and myself can produce legislation which deprives no citizen of his liberty and prevents no man or woman from defending liberty, we are not going to stand by and refrain from taking such steps as we consider necessary to protect the liberty of the whole. They tell us that we shall not be able to quote the Bible in the House. I shall continue to quote it. The Attorney-General by accepting Amendment after Amendment to the Incitement Bill has proved beyond any shadow of doubt that our intention is not to strike at those who believe in liberty, but at those who are using liberty in order to destroy our liberty.

Mr. WISE: Will the hon. and gallant Member translate that passage?

Mr. MAGNAY: Will the hon. and gallant Member remember that dogs are not allowed to run loose, but are kept on a track?

Captain EVANS: I quote that important extract from the Prime Minister's speech in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will follow the excellent example of the Attorney-General and accept reasonable Amendments to the Bi[...] 1. I realise, of course, that political liberty is affected by the Incitement to Sedition Bill and that the kind of liberty which we are now
discussing is of a more domestic nature, but I think that it is a kind of liberty to which the average person pays more heed than he does to any other kind of liberty. It would be easy to quote the Royal Commission in support of my case and just as easy for those who oppose it to quote the Royal Commission in opposition. I do not think that we are furthering the discussion by pursuing that course. I feel that on this particular question the House of Commons is just as qualified to discuss and determine questions of personal liberty as any Royal Commission. Liberty, as my friends and I understand it, is liberty, if we can afford it, to have a drink when we want it; to go to the movies if we can afford the time and the money—

Viscountess ASTOR: And take your wife.

Captain EVANS: Unfortunately, I have not got a wife—to play a game of golf, if time affords and have half-a-crown on the result if we are so inclined. On this particular Amendment our view of liberty is that if we want to go to a horse race or greyhound racing we can do so if our work or time allows. That is the kind of liberty to which I propose to address my argument. What the Bill says at present is that you cannot bet on greyhound tracks except on two days a week. In effect, the Bill says it is legal, it is moral, it is right to bet on greyhound tracks on one day, but it is illegal, immoral and wrong to do so on another day. That is not an argument or a policy which can be justified by any occupant of the Front Government Bench. If the Home Secretary and the Government insist on passing this Amendment, they will go far in following the example of the United States of America. In that country—the Noble Lady will agree with me in this—they have passed laws which have not been respected by the citizens who are called upon to observe them. That implies not only to prohibition but to betting laws. Up to a few months ago it was illegal to bet in any of the States with the exception of two. In the State of New York that law was evaded by very subtle means. You could go to Vernon Park and bet on a credit system. A bookmaker would approach you and, having found out your wishes in regard to a particular horse or race,
would make a note of it. No money would pass, but the following Monday you would get either an account or a cheque as your luck might determine. That was a law passed against the wishes of the majority of the people, and the result was that it was evaded and brought into disrespect. The same thing applies to Prohibition. My submission is that the same thing exactly will happen in this country, unless we take adequate steps to prevent it. Our chief objection to the Clause as it stands is this: Without any apparent good reason it differentiates between horse racing and greyhound racing. It allows betting on horses on every day of the week and it allows betting on greyhounds on only two days a week, and those two days are to be determined by a local authority. The Noble Marquis, Lord Londonderry, who was responsible for introducing this Bill in another place, in the course of his speech used these words:
Betting is a matter for the individual conscience.
If it is a matter for the individual conscience, why do the Government in this Clause endeavour to place restrictions upon that individual conscience? If people have any consciences left in these days I hope to goodness that the Government will allow people to enjoy them. As far as the licensing area is affected and the appointing of two specified days per week, under the Clause as it stands there is nothing to prevent London, Surrey, Essex, Middlesex, Kent and Hertfordshire county councils forming one joint licensing committee, and if they did that it would mean that all greyhound tracks within that vast area would have to arrange racing on the two days decided by the joint councils. The town of Ramsgate would be placed in exactly the same position as Watford. The White City at Shepherd's Bush would be regulated by the same decision as the dog track at Maidstone. And if we take the matter to an absurdly logical conclusion there is nothing in the Clause to prevent the whole of the licensing authorities throughout the country joining together and forming one licensing authority.
Let us take a more concrete example; let us take the example of the county of Kent. There is a track at Ramsgate which for obvious reasons is open for only four months of the year. Ramsgate is a seasonal town which caters, and I
think caters very well, for a vast holiday population. That means that Ramsgate could race on only two days of the week irrespective of the holiday season, and would have to comply with the same conditions as apply to urban areas near the City of London. It will not be suggested that anyone would travel specially from Dartford to Rochester in order to make a bet on a dog. It is wrong to suppose that people will travel from one part of Cardiff to another part in order to make a bet on a dog. The purpose of the Home Secretary, I understand, is to
curtail facilities for betting. But if a man is so fond of betting as that he will not even go out of his house; he will send a telegram to his bookmaker or send an errand boy to a street bookmaker, a procedure which is still overlooked by the law, and have a shilling or two on the 3.30. Therefore, the object of my right hon. Friend is not safeguarded in any way at all by this Clause. In Birmingham, for instance, it would be foolish to suggest that anyone would go from Perry Barr to Hall Green as a matter of habit for the purpose of patron[...]sing a greyhound track. The lines of communication are most difficult and it could be done with convenience and comfort only with a private car.
There is another aspect of the case which I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider. That is the question of a greyhound racing track which is debarred by local agreement from racing greyhounds on specified days. Let us assume for argument's sake that a local authority decided that Wednesday and Saturday are suitable days for greyhound racing. It might well be that one of the greyhound racing tracks situated within that licensing area has an agreement with a football club or a dirt racing track which would debar it from racing on the days specified by the county council. It might well be that in the same area there is another track which does not suffer from the same disability. Therefore, you will have an unfair differentiation between the track which is debarred by agreement with the football club and the other track, and it would be unable to compete with the track that is free from that obligation.
I am very surprised that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not supported the principle laid down by the Jockey Club. He has told us on many
occasions, and I think chiefly in reply to our arguments advocating a national board of control for greyhound racing, that any body we mig[...]t set up to give effect to that principle could not enjoy the same prestige or standing as the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee enjoy. I do not think that anyone would quarrel with that statement in so far as it affects the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. They are two bodies which earn and enjoy the respect not only of a sporting public but of the vast majorit[...]r of people in England. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman having that great respect for that body, it surprises me that he does not take a leaf out of the book of the Jockey Club? What is it that the Jockey Club is at great care to do? It goes to special pains to see that racecourses which are near to each other do not raee on the same day. Regulations are made to prevent that state of affairs. Imagine for one moment if the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee allowed Sandown Park, Kempton Park, Hurst Park, Alexandra Park, Epsom, Northolt, Gatwick and Lingfield to race on the same day. Obviously it would be impossible from an economic and logical point of view for those racecourses to exist.
We feel that if the Home Secretary persists in this Clause without Amendment he is supporting a principle of class distinction in sport which cannot be defended by any hon. Member. If my Amendment is accepted it will enable my right hon. Friend to allow track owners to choose the two days most convenient from all points of view, having regard to the nearness of other tracks and other considerations. I ask my right hon. Friend in all seriousness whether this is an extravagant request to make at this time. Let us look at the problem from a practical point of view. In endeavouring to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to take what we think is a reasonable point of view on this matter we must remember that his one object is the curtailment of betting facilities and the curtailment of the number of greyhound tracks within an area. My submission is that in the towns the number of tracks situated within any urban district will solve itself. If there is not sufficient public demand to justify two tracks being operated, two tracks
will not be operated, but only one, or none at all. As to counties and vast licensing areas, I think I have illustrated, even to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman, that such a regulation as he suggests in his Clause is not necessary.
I freely admit, of course, that there is moderation in all things. I feel sure that most of us realise that any Executive or Cabinet must be wholly responsible for legislation that it introduces into this House. Although the Government have turned down the many requests which has been made from all parts of the House for a free vote on the principle of the Bill, yet I do feel that on matters of detail of this kind my right hon. Friend will perhaps be able to, take a more generous view. He has the reputation, and I think the enviable reputation, of being a very able statesman. I put it to him this afternoon that he should be an able politician too. Let us remember that the people whom this Bill will affect are the people who, we hope, will support the National Government at the next General Election. I am not ashamed at all to bring that point of view into the Debate. After all, we are entitled to do what we can to represent the views of the people, as we interpret those views. We have to realise that owing to the very generous action of the Conservative party every man and women over 21 years of age has the vote. They have the right to feel that if the Government of to-day consider that they are fit enough to judge of the difficulties of their own country, then indeed they are fit and proper people to judge of their morals and their own behaviour, without any unnecessary direction from any Government Front Bench.
You cannot legislate against a born gambler. He will gamble in any case, and if he is a gambler at heart it will be much more convenient for his purpose to gamble on horses than on dogs. I suggest, as a very junior back-bencher, that my right hon. Friend in introducing legislation in this House should endeavour to legislate for the majority of people and not for the minority who have to be safeguarded against themselves. This final appeal I desire to make to my right hon. Friend. This Amendment is
put forward in the sincere belief that in this way the Government will be enabled to satisfy a very large body of normal opinion in this country, the opinion of people who fear that it is a very bad precedent for any Government to come to this House and to dictate to them the days on which they shall enjoy the recreation that they deem best for their leisure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept my Amendment, in view of the fact that against the wishes of a very large number of his supporters in this House he has fixed the number of 104 racing days instead of 150.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) had made that speech to-day for the first time, I am not sure that the Home Secretary would not feel himself obliged to reconsider his position, but I think I recollect having heard that speech about 15 times in the Committee upstairs.

HON. MEMBERS: No

Captain EVANS: Does my hon. Friend not recollect that the Committee only got as far as the end of Clause 1 and that on that Clause we were not permitted to discuss the question of the fixing of the days?

Mr. WILLIAMS: It may have been that I only heard it 14 times and not 15, but the hon. and gallant Member will also recollect that Clause 1 dealt with the number of days and that almost the whole of the Debate on that Clause centred around the question of whether the number of days should be limited to 104 or 156 or should be 208 or 300. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Now, the hon and gallant Member has made an appeal to the Home Secretary, an appeal so moving that it almost removed me from the Front Opposition Bench. He talked about liberty and the rights of the people. Were it not for the fact that the hon. and gallant Member voted on Friday last for a Bill which in our view affects the liberty of every individual in this country, we might be inclined to say that there was some point in his claim that he wishes to preserve the liberty of the individual. But when we look at the OFFICIAL REPORT we find that he voted for the Incitement to Disaffection Bill
which would rob the ordinary individual of liberty to do and say what he conceives to be right—

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It may not interfere with the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) or the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff, but it certainly restricts the liberty of other people and the hon. and gallant Member voted for that Measure. It is only—and here I do not refer to the hon. and gallant Member in any personal way—when questions of profit or private interests are at stake that the hon. and gallant Member submits such a fervent appeal for the extension of a liberty which most people in the Committee upstairs, when they were considering this matter, thought was licence. The hon. and gallant Member made some reference to subtlety. This Amendment to the Amendment is a very subtle move to restore the Debate on the question of the 104 days, but I am not at all dissatisfied that an opportunity should be given to Members generally to hear that question debated. I would prefer that the Committee of the Whole House should at any rate get the chance of listening to a full dress Debate on the question and then taking a decision than that that decision should rest with the smaller number. The question is one of limiting to 104 the number of days on which the owners and occupiers of these tracks are to be allowed to exploit the general population. It is not that the general population in all cases are unwilling to be exploited. I can conceive that, but, in almost every case, in which the development of a new means of gambling or any other social evil has reached a certain point, all through history it has been the duty and the obligation of Parliament to limit facilities for it once liberty began to develop into licence.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. We are not now discussing the question of the number of days, but the question of allowing the local authority in consultation with the local track owners to fix certain days of the week for racing.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think that probably I appreciate the point as well as the hon. Member but the object of this Amendment, as we shall doubtless learn from the hon. Member when he addresses the
Committee, is to ensure that instead of the same days being fixed for the tracks in Birmingham, or any other centre, each track is to have its racing days fixed differently. The result will be that in any large city with a population of 1,000,000 or a little less where they have three tracks, they can so arrange the days that there will be six days racing each week. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary suggests 104 days in the year that obviously implies the intention that not more than two days per week shall be allowed on which greyhound track owners can induce and encourage people both young and old to go to their tracks.

Mr. PIKE: What the Home Secretary has said in Clause 1 of the Bill is that there should be 104 days racing per year per track.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is perfectly true, but the Clause with which we are now dealing is concerned with the fixing of the 104 days and it seems to me, without going back to the Second Reading Debate or the Debates in Committee, that the intention of the Amendment to the Minister's Amendment is obvious. Its intention is to extend facilities for gambling. The right hon. Gentleman would not be doing himself justice or the vast majority of people justice if he were to concede this point, and because of the Royal Commission's recommendation on a growing social evil I am obliged for once in a way to support the Home Secretary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stand to his guns because only by doing so has he any possibility of carrying the Bill at all.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I rise to support the case made in such an admirable speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). In many discussions that we have had recently affecting particular Measures of this kind I do not think we have heard a clearer exposition of a case than that which has just been given by my hon. and gallant Friend. Having examined all the elements of the appeal which he has made to the Minister I do not feel that there is much to be added in support of his statement. What we ask for in the Amendment to the Amendment is that
there shall be liberty in each district, in consultation with the local authority, to vary the days upon which greyhound racing is to take place. We have heard a great deal recently about liberty, and my hon. and gallant Friend has given an illustration from a very high authority of the acceptance of that principle in high places in the administration of this country. Take my own city of Birmingham. Will it not be embarrassing to the local authority who will be charged with the administration of this Measure if they should be unable to concede to the two or three racing tracks there—each of which is administered in a most efficient way—the right to carry on meetings on different days of the week, if it is the wish of the people, in pursuance of the principle of civil liberty, to enjoy their recreation upon those particular days? I would like to ask the Home Secretary, who has been so considerate to us in relation to this Measure, whether he has had an opportunity for further consultation on the suggestion made in another place by a very eminent statesman that there should be further consideration of this point when the Bill comes to this House. The people who frequent dog-racing tracks are the ordinary plain people of this country. They have not private cars, and they cannot travel from one track to another.

Viscountess ASTOR: The people who own the tracks have private cars.

Mr. HANNON:: do not like making any retort to the Noble Lady, because she stands alone in this House in her peculiar conception of these matters, and it would not be kind to retort to her when she makes an interruption of that kind. Here we have in a great city a large number of people who desire to take their recreation at these dog-racing tracks. Take the two tracks in my own division, in which I may say I have no personal interest whatever. Is it to be suggested that the people who go to enjoy the dog racing at King's Heath would rush from there to Hall Green, which is about four miles away, in order to take part in racing or in betting on both courses. I suggest that it would be a very generous concession, and would be consistent with the wishes of the masses of the people, were the Home Secretary to agree to this modification,
namely, that the local licensing authority in consultation with the local dog-racing people should be able to agree to the distribution of the days as between various tracks instead of fixing certain specified days in each week for all tracks.
We in the Midlands have a very congested population. They like to have their evening recreation and it seems an interference with their liberty that they should be obliged to have their dog racing on two specified days of the week instead of having freedom to attend on whatever other days might be fixed under such an arrangement as is here suggested between the various tracks. I do not agree with the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that there would be racing on six days of the week under such an arrangement. Those responsible for the management of these tracks have just as high a sense of moral responsibility as any Member of the House or any member of public. In Birmingham at all events this industry, as the Home Secretary has called it, or this recreation as somebody else has called it, or this sport, if it is entitled to that designation, has been conducted on lines which challenge examination from the moral point of view. I think it would be unfair to impose on a great community where there are two or three tracks the obligation of having these meetings all on the same days.
My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the case of London where there will be a joint committee administering this matter over an area as large as a German principality or as large as Yorkshire and making arrangements for meetings which are to be held in different localities affected by entirely different circumstances. Surely some provision ought to be made in a far-reaching Measure of this kind for taking into account the peculiar circumstances of each district in fixing the days for dog racing. In this projected law, we are entering, in view of public opinion, upon a very dangerous experiment. How far are we differentiating between the rights of the mass of the wage-earning classes and the rights of those who attend race meetings under the auspices of the Jockey Club? I speak with a full sense of responsibility, as one who has been in the public life of this country for 30 years and has taken part in a great many electoral contests when
I say that it is a dangerous thing to suggest to the masses of the people that one set of electors are to be placed in a different category from another in relation to the sports and recreations which they have the opportunity of enjoying.
I do not want to make any electoral or party capital out of a Bill of this kind. believe that this is a Bill which ought to be presented to the House as a nonparty Measure and discussed upon its merits apart from any political differences or feelings. As it has been taken up by the Government and as my right hon. Friend is carrying it through this House, with his usual ability and steadfastness in resisting any kind of pressure from time to time, I, as a loyal supporter of the Government, must act with him, but surely in future, when history comes to record his acts as a Member of this Government, it will be a terrible thing for him to reflect that class legislation is to be associated with his administration. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend not to be responsible for bringing class legislation into the arena of the public and social life of this country, but to give the man in the street, the wage-earner, the same opportunities of enjoying his recreation as members of the Jockey Club have. Let him not allow people to say, when he comes to appeal to them to support a National Government, "You have placed the privileges of the Jockey Club on a higher level than those of the people." I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whom we all welcome back to this House, would say of the Home Secretary, after this Bill goes through, "What is the protagonist of the policy of the National Government doing? He is placing one class of citizens in one category and another class in another category, and the Government have resisted the desire of their own supporters to give equal fair play to those who belong to the working class and to those who belong to the rich Jockey Club."
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he will be acting wisely and consistently with the fine qualities for which he has always stood if he accepts this Amendment to his Amendment. We who are supporting him in this House and are determined to support him in the future would not put forward our Amendment if we felt that it was inconsistent with the best
interests of the country and of the party to which we belong. I do not care how he modifies the Amendment so long as it gives a fair and reasonable measure of liberty to local rackcourse owners, in consultation with the local authorities, for the enjoyment of this sport in the different localities. If he takes that decision, he will throughout the country command a large measure of support and appreciation for a statesmanlike decision.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg hon. Members to turn to Sub-section (2) of this Clause, which has been in the Bill from the beginning. It reads:
The appointed days fixed by a licensing authority shall be the same for the whole of their licensing area, and shall not include any Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday.
Those are the vital words in the Bill, and if this Amendment to the Amendment were passed, it would mean that that Subsection would have to be taken out, and the Bill would be a wholly different Measure from the one put before the House on the Second Reading, inasmuch as the purpose of the Bill was to deal with an acknowledged social danger. We are dealing with dog tracks because of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and if they were not a social danger, we should not be discussing the Bill at all. According to the hon. Member for the Moseley division (Mr. Hannon), our time is being wasted on this Bill. If so, the time of the Commissioners also was being wasted, and they were misled in their recommendations, but the whole basis of our discussion is that we have here something that has grown up of recent years that is causing grave social consequences, and it is to deal with an acknowledged evil that the Bill was introduced.
One thing recommended was that we should limit the time for the facilities for this gambling, and that is why we decided on the 104 days in Clause 1. Those 104 days would be a worthless decision if this Amendment to the Amendment were accepted, and al] that we did in Clause 1 would be undone, because obviously the big interests that are searching their possibilities, the interests that are out, not for national good, but for their own advantage, will look for the opportunity of as many days as possible. I wonder what limit could be put
upon their appetite or their demands as far as the facilities for gambling are concerned. Would any Member of this Committee like to leave it to the manufacturers of totalisators as to how many totalisators should be put on the courses? Would any Member of this Committee like to leave it to the promoters of these greyhound tracks as to how many tracks there should be, and on how many days they should be open? They would only know one limit to their demand, and that would be the exhaustion of the resources of the people who attend.
The Amendment to the Amendment, if accepted, would mean that you would not be helping the small track, the individual track; you would be helping the tracks that are owned by the big multiple concerns. They would survey this country just as a conqueror looks at a territory, and they would plant their flag here and there with here territory to be acquired, and there another district to be brought in, just as the big multiple firm very properly does. The big multiple firm looks around and regards every city and town in which it has not got a strategic position as being a challenge to further effort, and you will have the same with the big multiple concern dealing with your greyhound tracks if you pass the Amendment to the Amendment. Two nights would not satisfy them, and as far as they could with the tracks under their control they would make them run from Monday to Tuesday, to Wednesday, to Thursday, to Friday, and to Saturday; and they would be entitled to do it on the hon. Member's argument.
His argument, and that of the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), was that when he British working man wanted to go to a track, the track should be opened for him, that if he wished to invest his sixpence or his shilling, who should stand in his way? The totalisator people say, "We are out to meet and to concern ourselves with the liberty of the people of this country." The whole Bill is gone if the Amendment to the Amendment is carried, and that is very well known by the hon. and gallant Member who moved it. I am not concerned about his argument for liberty. I remember that when Demetrius in Ephesus found that his trade was in danger, he did not go out to the public to ask the public to sup-
port him in the making of silver shrines, but he went out and made the cry "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Whenever a trade is affected, the man never claims for his trade, but goes out and says, "Great is the liberty of the subject."
The claim is now made by one who very plainly and very honourably declared his position in this matter on the Second Reading as the Chairman of British Totalisator Manufacturers. He, quite obviously, is asking for the liberty of the subject pretty much as Demetrius cried "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." The British people know this, that there is no greater injury to liberty than loose living, and we come back to the point that was emphasised yesterday, not that it is a broad academic question of liberty, but a social evil. We are concerned with the people being exploited for financial advantage, and we are concerned with the temptations to the young. That-is the justification for this Bill, and because the Amendment to the Amendment would destroy the Bill that is based upon that idea, we shall vote against it.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Gentleman referred to Demetrius and Diana of the Ephesians. May I say, in view of the inference that might be drawn, that I have not a shadow of interest of any sort or kind in any race track in this country?

Mr. FOOT: I am making no accusation against anyone, but the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff, on the Second Reading, very honourably stated in this House that he was the paid chairman of British Totalisator Manufacturers. Therefore, the plea for the liberty of the subject, I think, might come better from some other Member.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I want strongly to support the very able speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) and his very reasonable request. I do not agree with the last speaker, that this Amendment to the Amendment would wreck the Bill in any way. I think it would improve the Bill greatly, because the vast numbers of people who attend greyhound race meetings are drawn from purely local sources and are people who cannot afford to spend money on travelling from one
point to another. The point of this, proposal is to make the days prescribed in the Bill flexible so as to suit the convenience of the local public, and that is not, to my mind, an unreasonable request. I should like to draw attention to the only two speeches that have been made to-day in favour of the Home Secretary's Amendment. They come from the Front Bench of the Opposition and from one of the Leaders of the Liberal party. The Home Secretary knows very well that in Committee upstairs, if it had not been for his co-operation with the Socialists and the Liberals, he would not have been able to get a number of things through which he did get through, and that proves that *we on this side, [...]ather than the hon. Members opposite, are looking after the interests of the poorer classes.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Was the hon. Member so contemptuous of Liberal support at the last election?

Mr. CLARRY: I did not ask for it from beginning to end, and I think I should have been able to do without it, and never since the election have I definitely asked for it. I would like now to draw attention to one other point. Although the analogy between horse-racing and greyhound racing is not complete in a number of particulars, I would like to show the illogical nature of the case for this Bill, because horse-racing takes place in this country on every day of the week except Sunday, and later in the Bill we shall be asked to approve of certain measures to facilitate betting on horse-racing, for Totalisators, Limited. Therefore, there is a great deal of humbug about this talk about a social evil that is taking place, because with the greyhound public the betting is purely local, whereas betting on horse-racing is of a national character. I cannot see the logic, on the one hand, of increasing facilities for betting on horses and, on the other hand, in the same Measure reducing facilities for betting on dogs. There is only one conclusion to be drawn: There is more influence behind the horse-racing.
We desire to give the poorer people, those who are not able to spend a large amount of money, reasonable facilities for their amusement. I ask the Home Secretary to consider most carefully the Amendment to the Amendment, as the
total number of days is restricted in the Bill to a margin which is stated to be below subsistence level for quite half the tracks in the country, and I think it is reasonable that, having fixed those days at such a level, we should give facilities for track owners, in collaboration with the local authorities, to cater for their public and the best convenience of that public.

5.30 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): This Debate is mainly a repetition of the Debate which we had upstairs on Clause 1, and I will bring the matter back to its proper proportion. One might think, from some of the speeches that have been made, that there is no evil to be dealt with. The reason why the Bill has been introduced is the definite opinion expressed by the Royal Commission and supported by a great body of public opinion in the country that this is a problem that had to be tackled; and it had to be tackled, if at all, on the basis of limiting the existing facilities for organised gambling on racecourses. That is the essential principle with which we are concerned. The position under the Bill is that by the first Clause there is to be betting on tracks for only 104 days, and the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is that the 104 days are to be fixed by the licensing authority for the area over which they exercise their jurisdiction.
It is not a question, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) said, as to whether we think it right to bet on Monday but wrong on Tuesday. It is a question for the licensing authority to allocate the days in the year, not necessarily twice in the week, but to choose the days in the whole year on which they will allow betting to be carried on in their area, bearing in mind, as they have to do, the conditions which we discussed last night. To suggest, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is doing in the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, that each track should be allowed to have separate days, of course stultifies the whole Bill. If that is going to be pressed on my right hon. Friend, he will take a different view in regard to the progress of the Bill from that which he has taken so far. The object is to limit
the facilities for betting, and I would say in all kindness to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) that if he would go to the pains of explaining to the electors what this Bill does, instead of denouncing it in those magnificent periods about the liberty of the subject, they would see that the Government are dealing with the matter in a very reasonable way.
I resent most strongly the attempt to bring in prejudice as between horse racing and dog racing. I repudiate entirely the suggestion that we are not dealing with horse racing because those responsible for it have more influence with the Government. There has been no influence in any shape or form and the hon. Member who made the suggestion knows it. It is an accusation which should not have been made. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff said that one anticipated that the Jockey Club and other racing authorities would consider having all their racing on the same day. Let us look at the question. Here is a statement from the Royal Commission which will bring the matter into its proper proportion:
On the seven horse racecourses within a radius of 15 miles of Charing Cross there were 187 days' racing a year, whereas in the same area there were 23 greyhound tracks and over 4,000 days' racing. In the city of Glasgow there are no horse racecourses, but there are five greyhound tracks with about 1,400 days' racing
That is the problem with which we are called upon to deal.

Captain A. EVANS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that in Glasgow, where there are no racecourses, the people are at liberty to bet on horse races in any city and on any day when horse racing is taking place? As the end of the Government is to curtail facilities for betting, the number of racing days is not important.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to think it is not important, but we take the contrary view. We are dealing with the problem of dog racecourses being set down in the middle of industrial areas and racing taking place every afternoon and evening, and sometimes on Sundays. After all, we are doing something to meet the claims of the greyhound track occupiers by the subsequent Amendment
which my right hon. Friend has tabled, and by which they will be able to agree on the days. That cuts away a great deal of the argument against the present Amendment that days inconvenient to a particular track may be fixed or that days may be fixed for a track on which, for some reason, the greyhound people could not use it. It only remains in circumstances of that kind for the track occupiers to agree among themselves. The hon. Member for Moseley said that it would be a very generous concession on the part of the Government to accept the Amendment. It would, indeed, because it would entirely wreck the Bill. For that reason we stand firm to our Amendment. We cannot accept this differentiation in the fixation of days for tracks in one area, but stand by the proposal that has been made. As regards the 104 days, that particular proposition has been settled on Clause 1.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether the Government have considered the position that will arise, if this Amendment be accepted, in many parts of the country where four or five different licensing districts join one another in an area of two or three miles? There are three tracks in Sheffield, one in Rotherham, one in Doncaster and none in Penistone. All those places converge on the licensing district of Sheffield, although they are all separate licensing authorities. What will be the position if each of these authorities decide to fix two days different from those which are granted by their next door neighbours? The result will he six or seven continuous days' racing within a tram ride, or at least within a private ear ride, of each other, with full betting facilities over the whole area. What is the position of the Government when that anomaly arises?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the licensing authorities are the county councils or the county borough councils. It will be possible for them to join and do the licensing by a joint committee.

Mr. PIKE: Are we to understand now that, where there is a possibility of these differences arising, the wording of the Bill will be used to make the areas that converge on each other have the same days for racing, and that Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield will be compelled
to have a joint committee in order that there shall he no different facilities in their respective areas? Is that the case?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Read the Bill.

Mr. PIKE.: I have read the Bill.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. WISE: My hon. and gallant Friend has failed entirely to answer the case put up by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), because, with his usual masterly sidetracking of the discussion, he put up a defence against a case which was not in any way proposed by the Mover of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. He refused to answer the query as to what would happen in one of the cases quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff. It was the case of Ramsgate, which is in the county of Kent, and which would be under the same licensing authority as another track on the border of the Metropolitan area. One track might want to keep open for four months a year, and the other to have the 104 days distributed over the 52 weeks. That case has not in any way been answered. All that the hon. and gallant Member told us was that the Government wished to get back to the first principles of the Bill to limit the facilities for organised gambling. If that was what the Government wanted to do, they need not have brought in this Bill at all. They should have brought in a Bill to deal with organised gambling, but not a Bill which is an interference with legitimate recreation.
They have had the figures of the Royal Commission's report showing that gambling on dog races is one-half that on football, and one-twelfth that on horse racing. If they wanted to limit the facilities for organised gambling, it would have been more rational and courageous, and more in keeping with the policy of the Government, to have dealt with the greater evils before dealing with the less. One is forced to the conclusion that this is not a question of limiting organised gambling at all, but of giving effect to a prejudice which has been created—no one knows how—in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman Against one particular form of amusement. At all costs he is determined that his fellow-countrymen shall be protected against any possibility of being
able to enjoy themselves. In the pursuit of that end, he is refusing to accept an Amendment which would only carry out in many ways the spirit of his own Bill.
Both upstairs and here we have been told that the local authorities are the most trustworthy and admirable licensing bodies, and any attempt to transfer the authority from these local bodies has been met with a blank refusal by the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly, he approves of the local authorities, but apparently he does not trust them far enough to use reasonable discrimination in their own areas. He does not seem to think that the London County Council, say, would be sufficiently alive to the danger, which he alleges, of six days' racing a week in its area. He does not seem to think that the corporation of Liverpool could be trusted to see the wiles of these cunning owners of dog tracks and to reject their claims to race on different days.
All we are asking him is to allow the local authorities, of whom he so fervently approves, a little latitude and discretion in allotting the 104 days. I suggest that, if the local authorities cannot be trusted to do that, they cannot be trusted to issue licences at all. If, on the other hand, they can be trusted to issue licences, they can be trusted to issue them for 'a reasonable number of days and under reasonable conditions. The difficulties which have been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend have not been answered yet by the Government. There is time for the Government to put up a case even now. I feel sure that if they would examine this matter a little more carefully and with a little less of that unflinching refusal ever to give way on any point whatever, they would find it perfectly easy to allow this discretion to the local authorities. It is not a very wide discretion. They are limited to 104 days, anyhow. All they may do is to allow one track to have different days from another. They are elected bodies, and presumably they will represent the will of the people in their areas. Surely the people themselves must be allowed to have some say in their own amusements, even indirectly, and if the Government do not allow them to go racing when they like, surely they might allow the elected representatives of the people to select the days for them.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am afraid I shall have to differ from many of the other speakers this evening. This Amendment to the proposed Amendment is very subtle and carries with it matters of vital importance. The question was well threshed out in Committee. There are conflicts of interests among those engaged in racing and up to now those various interests have not been consulted. There are ways and means of consultation which could have been adopted with a view to securing unanimity of opinion in regard to this Bill, but the great and vital matter on which there is a difference of opinion turns on the subtlety of this Amendment. The Home Secretary is wise in having unanimity in regard to the fixing of days. I can see, from a business point of view, the possibility of a tendency not to secure an agreement one with another on the question of days, on the off chance that some provision such as this might be inserted in the Bill. I do not give a toss of a button for all the race tracks in the country, or any of the people concerned, but where certain interests are concerned, and different points of view are put forward, I try to see whether conciliation can be effected, and if I am not able to bring about that conciliation I intend to try to get my point of view put into execution.
Is it not quite patent that if there is to be non-fixity of days, and if the provision as to 104 days racing becomes operative, it will be to the advantage of large business interests to get hold of the whole of the dog racing and have a six days week—each track with its two days—over the whole of the country? This is not only possible but, in my humble opinion, it is what lies behind the action of those who are not interested in coming together to see whether an arrangement can be arrived at. I believe there ought to be regulations, and that by the common consent of those interested we could get an agreement which might shorten these proceedings in Committee, but do not let us try to fool each other with the idea that a particular body does not know what it is trying to get at. The sooner the interests concerned recognise that people are able to see what is going on the better it will be from the point of view of this Committee pursuing a straightforward policy.
I do not believe in juggling, I believe in straightforward dealing. I believe in making a deal if that be possible, but we are not able to find that any effort is being made to come to an agreement, and I do not think we ought to be forced to accept the proposals of this description which are put forward, as it were, by stealth. Many people in this country would stand to lose all that they have invested in these undertakings, and I am not prepared to give any syndicate any power of monopoly which would crush the others out. If this is to be good for one it must be good for all. There will have to be a common policy. An hon. Member interrupts me with a reference to Nationalisation. I am not in favour of nationalising dog racing. I regard the nationalisation of dog racing much as I regard the National Government.
I am concerned to prevent the exploitation of the public. If dog racing on six days a week can be secured by a syndicate, then the property of other track owners in this country will be depreciated. Let all those who are concerned with this Bill meet together and decide what they are really prepared to go in for, decide upon a minimum, which can then be brought before the House. Let us get a common understanding, which up to now we have not been able to arrive at. If we did that we might be able to get a Measure that would give all a chance to exist, but we ought not to support a proposal which would get the better of the smaller men in such a subtle way. I am concerned to secure a fair and square deal for all concerned, and I support the dour, solid, stubborn, egotistical Minister in the attitude he has taken up.

5.52 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: It must have struck the Committee that it is a most extraordinary thing to find that nobody-is speaking from the point of view of special interests. Everybody says, "I am not concerned with vested interests. I am not interested in the little dogs or the big dogs." But I do not suppose there is any Bill before the House where it has been more flagrant—the vested interests concerned with this Bill. And it is always the same thing. Whenever those who support a vested interest want to exploit the people they always
begin by talking about the liberty of the working man. It is enough to make the House—well, I do not know what to say. They wax eloquent about the liberty of the working man, the same old vested interest group who fight every social reform, and always in the name of liberty. But every one of us knows what they are speaking for and why they are speaking. I am grateful to the Government for standing so firm. We are not taken in by any of the speeches. We know where they come from and where they want to go.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is within the Rules of this House for any Member to launch allegations of financial interest? [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am putting my own point and I shall do it again in regard to this Amendment. Is it in accordance with the dignity of the House of Commons that any Member should get up and say that another Member is taking part in the discussions because of some financial interest?

Viscountess ASTOR: I never said that.

The CHAIRMAN: The point which the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr.Knight) raised is, of course, a correct one in the words in which he put it, but I have not at present noticed that the Noble Lady has transgressed. Perhaps I might ask her to devote herself more closely to the Amendment.

Visoountess ASTOR: I was talking about vested interests, and I did not say a word about financial interests. I am a little suspicious about Members who are so nervous when vested interests are mentioned. I have always found that an honest woman did not mind what anybody called her.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be well if we turned to the Amendment—if there be anything more to said about it.

Viscountess ASTOR: I only want to say that I am delighted that the Government have stuck to their purpose, in spite of the pressure brought to bear here and the threats from outside, and I would reiterate that people who are honest do not have to explain. People who are not representing vested interests are not nervous about themselves. The Govern-
ment certainly are not representing vested interests, or any interests except the general welfare of the public. We find that when we go to the country, in spite of what an hon. Member from Birmingham said—that when he goes to the country he will find the people saying the National Government have let down the national welfare. I think the National Government are well represented, and I once more ask Members not to get up to explain that they are honest or virtuous.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I shall not detain the Committee, but I am not going to allow the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) to get away with the last word in a discussion of this sort.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already asked the Noble Lady to discontinue that particular discussion, which had nothing to do with the Amendment and on which the hon. and learned Member interposed. I cannot allow the hon. and learned Member to go on with it.

Mr. KNIGHT: Then I am going to address myself, under the Rules of Order, and with your permission, to the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member rose on a different point altogether—one of Order. If he wishes to make a speech on this particular Amendment, that raises another position. I call on Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.

Mr. KNIGHT: On a point of Order. I began to address the Committee, under your Chairmanship, and am I to understand that because you thought I was going to take another line I am not to continue the speech I had commenced?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. I distinctly asked the hon. and learned Member not to continue the speech he had commenced to make. I may explain that I understood that he was rising in pursuance of the point on which he did so previously —a point of Order. Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.

Mr. KNIGHT: On that point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: No point of Order arises. I have already ruled.

Mr. KNIGHT: On a point of Order. I had already started to address the Com-
mittee, and I desire to continue for two or three minutes to address the Committee on the question which is before the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already explained to the hon. and learned Member that I allowed him to address the Committee because I thought he was continuing the remarks in which he had raised a point of Order. I may have been wrong, but it does not alter the fact that if the Debate is to be continued on the Amendment it is for me to choose which hon. Member I will call upon to speak, and I called the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite), who had risen several times in the course of the Debate, and I do so again. Mr. Braithwaite.

Mr. KNIGHT: I had already risen to address the Committee.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: While realising that the Committee are anxious to arrive at a decision upon this Amendment, which has been debated for a considerable time, I shall be grateful if hon. Members will allow me two or three minutes in an attempt to prevent that decision being arrived at upon what I believe to be a misapprehension. The Under-Secretary of State, when replying on the Amendment, rested himself with considerable comfort upon the Recommendations of the Royal Commission, and said that this was a wrecking Amendment, and that if it were carried the result would be to wreck the Bill. The Bill was brought in, he tells us, because the Royal Commission pointed out that greyhound racing constituted a social danger. I should have listened with considerably more respect to that argument had I not been present in the Committee yesterday, when we were told from the Front Bench with equal emphasis that the Government were busily engaged in throwing over a Recommendation of the Royal Commission with respect to what was regarded as a social danger, the football pool, and that the Government declined to give any explanation of what was being done. The Bill owes its presence in the House to two reasons other than those which were given by the Under-Secretary. The first reason is the finding in the High Court, which
declared the totalisator illegal upon greyhound tracks, and the second is that the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) succeeded under the Ten-Minute Rule in carrying a Bill in favour of lotteries.

The CHAIRMAN: This appears to be another discussion which is becoming irrelevant. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman say anything yet about the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I am sorry. I was endeavouring to reply to the Under-Secretary's reasons for resisting the Amendment. The Debate has run rather upon the theory that we have to discriminate, in legislating on this matter, between liberty and licence. I think those words were used by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). They have certainly been used by the Home Secertary on more than one occasion upstairs, and they have been used in the country. The Committee must be very careful when it lays down this discrimination between liberty and licence, especially when it comes to a question like this of fixing the days when tracks have to run on the same day. I suggest to the hon. Member for Don Valley that it is a little unfortunate if the House of Commons should lay down that a man who is able to get off from his work on Wednesday is exercising his liberty by going to a greyhound track, but that if he wishes to go on a Thursday, which may be another man's night off, he becomes licentious. I am anxious that the Committee shall not incur complaints of that kind by the working class, and I hope that the Home Secretary will find it possible to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage.
There are many cases where a track is used for other purposes during the week. There are cases where a football ground or a dirt-racing track exists upon the same premises. There is a track in London where it would be impossible for greyhound racing to be held on a Saturday night. It would be unfortunate if something were laid down by the Committee in a fixed and rigid manner which would create anomalies. I do not think my suggestion conflicts with the views of the hon. Member for Don Valley who, I know, is anxious to confine greyhound racing within definite limits, but it would
be unfortunate if we were to set up machinery of this sort. We may take an analogy from another popular sport—football. Were it to be laid down that the Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea, Queen's Park Rangers, Crystal Palace and all the London professional clubs should play at home on the same Saturdays, and on other Saturdays should all play away from London where no one could watch them, the football-going public could justifiably complain that Parliament was making them and itself a little bit ridiculous. In Clause 17, Ice shall extend the facilities for betting upon horse racing, but now we are engaged in restricting the facilities for betting on greyhound racing. There should be no such discrimination between one form of entertainment and another, and I shall be very grateful if the Home Secretary can find it possible to consider this matter once more between now and the Report stage.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am very sorry if I appeared to come into conflict with the Chair because of a misunderstanding, but I am most anxious that no innuendo against Members shall get into currency. We are discussing what facilities shall be given to this pastime of the people. No one who understands this matter does not know that there will be assembled to-night throughout this country more people at this pastime than at any other. We are not dealing with something remote, but with something which affects a very large number of people, and it is proper that we should consider the terms upon which that pastime should be con-

ducted. It is carried on upon such a scale that some limitation is necessary. I urge the Home Secretary to listen to the plea which has just been advanced by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite), who, like myself, is unconnected with any interest in this matter and has a purely dispassionate attitude. I beg him to reflect that he is dealing with a matter which affects many hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, who are becoming suspicious that Parliament should interfere with a simple pastime. Facilities ought to he granted for this pastime, but they are objected to in the name of Liberty. What is the sort of liberty which is prayed in aid? I reflect that this appeal to liberty comes from the same quarter which has rejected the plea of the people to enjoy a larger use of Sunday, to get a glass of beer when they want to, and would prevent a person putting 6d. on a dog if he wants to. I beg the Home Secretary to remember that he is dealing with a very popular pastime, and that it is in the interests of the House of Commons that people should not get a suspicion that we are, for some reason or another, unduly hampering them.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 315.

6.25 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The next Amendment that I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay)—in page 9, line 33, after area,"to insert:
provided that betting is not permitted upon more than three days in any one week.

Mr. MAGNAY: I have consulted my friends about this Amendment and although we have put it down, we now think that local authorities ought to have full power to do what they choose, and, as we understand that there may be inserted in the Bill a Clause which might make a difference in this respect, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Further Amendment made:
In page 9, line 37, leave out calendar."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

6.26 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
(3) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to the fixing of appointed clays for any year—

(a) at least one month before fixing appointed days for the year, the licensing authority shall publish in at least two newspapers circulating in their licensing area a notice of their intention so to do;
(b) if, within the period of one month from the date of the publication of the said notice, the licensing authority receive a written notice signed—

(i) in the case of the fixing of appointed days for the year beginning on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, by all the persons who have given to the licensing authority notice in writing of their intention to apply for licences in respect of tracks in the licensing area; or
906
(ii) in any other case by all the holders of licences in force in respect of tracks in the licensing area;

stating that the signatories unanimously desire that the appointed days in that year should be the days specified in the notice given under this paragraph, then, if those days are days which might lawfully be fixed under the foregoing provisions of this section as the appointed days for the year, the licensing authority shall fix as those appointed days the days so specified;
(c) unless the licensing authority fix the appointed days for the year in accordance with paragraph (b) of this sub-section the authority shall, before fixing those days, consider any representations which may, during the period of one month from the date of the publication of the notice required by paragraph (a) of this subsection, have been made to the licensing authority in writing by the chief officer of police, or by any person who is the holder of a licence in force in respect of a track in the licensing area, or who has given to the licensing authority notice in writing of his intention to apply for a licence in respect of such a track;
(d) the licensing authority shall, on being requested by any person so to do, inform that person as to the latest time by which a notice under paragraph (b) or a representation under paragraph (c) of this sub-section must be received by the licensing authority if it is to be effective."

This Amendment, although it occupies a good many lines of print, is really a very simple proposal. It is to provide that, where occupiers of licensed tracks in a licensing area reach agreement among themselves about the facilities to be provided in the area, the licensing authority shall fix the days agreed upon as the appointed days. I do not think I need say much more about this problem. I hope that there will be a great measure of co-operation among these racing authorities, and, if that is so, there will be imposed upon the local authority the duty, if they agree, of appointing the days agreed upon.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: May I ask the Home Secretary, before we agree to this Amendment, whether he has considered the possibility of a certain number of tracks in any licensing area, owned by different interests who have not, at the time the application is made, any unanimous opinion on the question of days? Would this Amendment provide that the majority shall rule? For instance, supposing that there are three tracks owned by three different interests who have agreed upon certain days, and two others owned by other interests who disagree, will the majority be allowed to rule, or will those who are in the minority have a right to be heard in the same sense as the majority?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The minority will have an opportunity of putting their case, and the local authority will decide.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was proposing now to call the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon)—in line 19, to leave out paragraph (c), and to insert:
(c) Where the persons who have given notice as aforesaid or are holders of licences in force as aforesaid are not unanimous the licensing authority shall so far as possible, and after considering the representations of the chief officer of police fix the days proposed by the majority of such persons.

Does the hon. Member move? [HoN. MEMBERS: "He is not here."]

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Amendment and interpretation of Racecourse Betting Act, 1928.)

8.29 p.m.

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 1, to leave out "For the avoidance of doubts."
This is the first of a series of Amendments which have as their purpose to change the Clause from a positive to a negative, to prohibit the collection of offthe-course bets for the totalisator on the racecourse, and to prohibit the payment by the board of commission for such collection. Parliament never intended that the totalisator should be used for the purpose suggested in this Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment I called is in page 15, line 1, to leave out "For the avoidance of doubts." I understood the hon. Member would move it as introductory to later Amendments.

Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, the Amendments which follow are consequential upon it. Parliament intended strictly cash betting on the totalisator on the course, and there is no sanction for commission being paid as suggested in this Clause. It is therefore clear that to argue that the totalisator is a better betting service is irrelevant, just as argument from the financial position is also irrelevant. The Clause is a new facility, which we feel will lead to increased betting off the course.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Home Secretary will be aware that the point that has been raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has given rise to a good deal of public concern. I was not a Member of the House at the time the Racecourse Betting Act was passed,
but I have tried to acquaint myself with what was said during the Debates. I think there is no doubt that the most definite assurances were given at that time that the Act was only to apply to the operation of the totalisator upon the racecourse itself, and that it was never to be used for the obtaining of bets taken off the course. I am aware, of course, that the matter has come before the courts since those assurances were given, and that there has been given a decision that is inconsistent with many of the things that were said in the House. I am sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is not in his place, for this is a point on which he has laid much stress from time to time. We feel that though a case was made out during the Debates on the Racecourse Betting Act for the setting up of the totalisator for the maintenance of horse breeding in this country and so forth, there was no case made out for touting for bets off the course.
I can understand that if the convenience of the betting public were to be met something might be done in that direction, but undoubtedly it is something more than convenience that is being met at the present time. Inducements are being held out, commission is being paid, and under the operation of the Racecourse Betting Act every effort is now being made to extend betting among the public. That is the result of what has taken place in recent years. I have no doubt that the intention of Parliament is being flouted as that intention was expressed in the course of the Debates, and I think the public conscience will demand that there shall not be behind all the prestige and the standing of the Betting Control Board a general temptation to bet throughout the country. That inducement undoubtedly has been strengthened under present conditions, and it is because we regard those conditions with some alarm that the Amendment has been put down. We regret that the Home Secretary has found it necessary to put this Clause in the Bill, but it is because we think that what has happened in recent years is contrary to the expressed assurances upon which Parliament allowed that Act to pass that we submit this Amendment.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I support this Amendment for many of the reasons ad-
vanced by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot). Two Amendments are presumably being taken together, and they involve the general question of Tote Investors, Limited, and the discussions which took place in 1928. I understand that my original Amendment was passed over on account, presumably, of some legal decision which has been given on this question, but it may be recalled that that case is not yet concluded, and at this moment it may be on its way to another place. Therefore, I think the Committee would do well to regard this question as sub judice, and Tote Investors, Limited, as not having been either legalised or rendered illegal. At no time during the Debates in 1928, so far as one can see, did the Minister then in charge give the House the idea that anything was being dealt with apart from the introduction of the totalisator to horse racecourses. Let me turn to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, whose report we take as our betting Bible, because they are really the only people in a position to express an effective point of view upon what Parliament did and what Parliament intended doing in 1928. In paragraph 422, on page 123, after stating that the Act of 1928 was, according to the preamble, to be an Act to amend the Betting Act, 1853, to legalise the use of totalisators on certain racecourses, and to make further provision with regard to betting thereon, they say:
 So far as we are aware the promoters of the Bill never stated publicly that it was proposed that the board's activities should extend to betting off the course, nor was it ever suggested in Parliament that the, terms of the Bill would enable the board to attract off-the-course betting to the board's totalisators. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is any express Parliamentary sanction for this aspect of the board's activities.
That seems to be very clear. The Promoter of the Bill in 1928 never referred, specifically or otherwise, to the possibility of the extension of the totalisator to off-the-course betting. The Commission say there may be good reasons why this off-the-course betting should be considered, and why the totalisator should be made a success, namely, that money may be made available to help horse breeding, and so forth. In paragraph 426 they say:
As regards the second argument, we are not directly concerned with the board's financial position.
They are not concerned, for instance, as to whether the Betting Control Board is a profitable undertaking or not. They go on:
So far as we are aware, however, there was no public statement by the promoters of the Act of 1928 that the board intended to attract off-the-course bets, still less that the board's finances would be dependent upon the receipt of off-the-course money.
Subsequent events may have proved that without off-the-course money the Betting Control Board would become defunct. I do not intend to deal with the finances of that organisation, because they will come under consideration before the conclusion of the Debate, but I want to hold as nearly as one can to the discoveries made by the Royal Commission, who were appointed to make these discoveries, and examine the evidence, and I intend to rely on the recommendations of the Commission. On page 125 the Commission said further:
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the board's activities would be directed towards promoting au increase in the flow of betting from off the course to the totalisator.
That is, assuming their business was not really a financial success. Again, in paragraph 430, they say:
We believe that the extension of the board's operations to off-the-course betting is likely to result in attracting fresh bettors and to lead to a spread of the betting habit. We also think that the objections to the provision of gambling facilities by the State would apply with special force to a statutory body with branches throughout the country for the collection of bets.
It is obvious that if, as a result of this Bill, Tote Investors, Limited, is legalised, there will be a great increase in off-thecourse betting and a great increase in the income from off-the-course bets transmitted to the totalisator. Someone said of the Home Secretary in Committee that while he was restricting facilities for greyhound racing, with all of which I agree, he would be establishing totalisator clubs all over the country under this Clause 17. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but I fear he has not looked into this matter deeply enough, or he would be obliged to see the inevitable development which would follow from legalising the power to collect money all over the country and transmit it to the
totalisator on the course. It is obvious that in a short time we shall have in every town and large village in the country premises at which money will be collected and transmitted to the course, and by that simple process—what is called credit betting—the whole thing will be legalised, if Clause 17 of this Bill goes through in its present form. That was not intended in 1928, either by the promoters of the Bill or by the Government; and it must be recalled that the Government had to adopt that baby as their own, otherwise it would have died stillborn—[Laughter.] That is an Irishism. I meant that the baby would have been stillborn. The Government adopted that private Bill. They brought it from the Committee and took charge of it down here, negotiated it through the House, and allowed the House to believe that it was designed exclusively to provide an alternative means of betting on horse racecourses.
It is obvious from the accounts submitted to the Government that the board made a very bad mess of their business during the first two or three years. I am not saying their business methods were either good, bad or indifferent. It may have been that they were superoptimists when they started to erect their machines. But I say that before we readily grant these extended powers it would be as well for the Home Secretary and the Government to see all the implications of their action. As I have said, if the business of Tote Investors, Limited, is legalised we are likely to have offices in every town and large village to collect money, because that would be perfectly legal. As to bad debts, Tattersall's will see that there are not many bad debts if they can avoid it—it is quite an easy proposition. So, while the fellow who collects a few shillings in the street is locked up and fined £5 or £50, the man in the office who collects £100 or £500 and transmits that money to the course will "get away with it," and the right hon. Gentleman will be helping him by this Clause.
I come to the final recommendation on this subject of the Royal Commission. Be it understood that these men and women were strictly impartial. They admitted at the very commencement of their deliberations that betting was a fact, and could not be put down
altogether, and that they could only control betting where evil social consequences were accruing. As they were impartial, upon examining all the evidence which they had before them they were in a position to express an opinion as to what any future Government ought or ought not to do. This is what they said in the final recommendation:
"We therefore recommend that the board's powers should not include either:

(ii) power to set up offices off the course for the purpose of receiving bets off the course and transmitting them to the course; or
(ii) power to remunerate or offer special terms to other organisations or persons in consideration of the latter receiving bets and transmitting them to the totalisator."

That seems very conclusive. No other argument need be advanced. It is clear that as a result of their comprehensive review of the situation, they were satisfied that Tote Investors, Limited, was an undesirable extension and that sooner or later some Government would feel the ill effects of legalising Tote Investors, Limited. It is only a few short months since some hon. Members were almost trembling because of the development of the tote clubs, which grew like mushrooms in connection with horse racing in this country. Had means not been found to render those tote clubs illegal, there would have been no need for people to go to a horse race at Epsom, Sandown, Doncaster, Liverpool, or anywhere else, because in every village they could have placed their bets without any of the expense of going to the course. That would have been a sad day for the horse breeders and those interested in horse racing. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to do with Tote Investors, Limited, what nearly happened a year ago through the instrumentality of the tote clubs, he will be charged as the one Minister who did more damage to what some people regard as a healthy sport than any other Minister. I hope he will not commit himself and that he will agree to re-examine the whole question of the totalisator and off-the-course betting, with its marvellous possibilities of evil. I am pretty sure that when the Report stage is reached, we shall find the Home Secretary unwilling to extend off-the-course betting.

8.49 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I did not intend to intervene at this early stage of the dis-
cussion and upon a question in regard to which many Members have different opinions. I look at this problem from what I regard as the technical point of view. I think we should be in agreement that when tote clubs as we knew them sprang up they were a very great evil. Fortunately, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, we have been enabled to find means of stopping them. What remains? There remains a system which has grown up in this country of people betting on credit. I am taking the line, on behalf of the Government, that it is reasonable that the public should have the alternative of betting either with the bookmaker or with a totalisator. If that be the right view, —and up to now that has been the view which Parliament has accepted—it is surely reasonable that the same kind of privilege as the credit bettor may have of placing his bets by telephone or telegraph with a bookmaker upon the course, should be extended to those who desire to put their credit debts with the totalisator in preference to the bookmaker.
When I am told that what we are doing by this Measure is to set up a large number of offices, comparable with the tote clubs, I say that is a clear misunderstanding of the terms of this Measure. We know that there are bookmakers who receive credit bets in almost every town in the country. We know, too, that it is illegal to resort to those places, and under Tote Investors Limited, it is also illegal to resort. I understand that the transfer, with Tote Investors Limited, has been mainly a transfer of such credit bets from the bookmakers to the tote. Be that as it may, what we have endeavoured to do in this Bill is to make as little distinction as possible between the one and the other. Credit bets are limited to certain classes of people who can get credit. It is not so great an evil as some of the other forms of betting. 'We are taking this view, which I think is a common sense one, and, in doing so, we are proposing no more than what is the present condition under the law.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I have listened to what the Home Secretary has had to say upon the subject, but I am afraid he has left me completely unconvinced. I do not wish to repeat all that has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac
Foot) or the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) upon this subject. I was not a Member of the House at the time the Act of 1928 was passed, but from what I have read of the Debates and from what the then Home Secretary said upon the subject it was clearly the intention of Parliament, when totalisators were legalised upon racecourses, that that did not mean that there should be facilities throughout the length and breadth of the country for credit betting upon the totalisator. Since then we have had the Royal Commission which went into the whole question, and, as the hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out, have made recommendations which are entirely contrary to the Clause which is under discussion. When the Committee are being asked to legalise credit betting on totalisators, in conflict, as I maintain, with the past intention of Parliament and with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the Committee are entitled to consider what the administration of the Racecourse Betting Control Board has been. We are now being asked to give facilities to that board for obtaining bets from a source from which most people, until the recent decision in the Law Courts, believed that they were not entitled to draw. In spite of what the Home Secretary has said, I suggest that the only possible effect of this Clause being in the, Bill is that a body which is at the present time next door to insolvent will be propped up by the gift of an additional source of income. In drawing the attention of the Committee to the record of that board, if we find that in what it has done in the past it has shown itself extraordinarily inefficient, that is, again, a reason why we should not grant it additional powers.
I have taken a little trouble to look at the five reports which have been presented to the Home Secretary and to Parliament, and I find that until the last year the board's debt has increased continuously. It has raised no capital, but has financed itself by advances from a bank. In 1929, its debt was £466,000. In 1930, it had risen to £1,811,000, in 1931 to £2,206,000, in 1932 to £2,274,000, and in 1933 it had been reduced, if I understand the rather difficult balance sheets correctly, by about £6,000 to £2,268,000. It would appear that the bank which has advanced this money has become increas-
ingly nervous. The money was described in the balance sheets up to 1931 as advances. In 1932 it was described as secured advances. In the last report presented we are told that a portion of these secured advances has been converted into a debenture, and under this debenture the whole income of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is to be devoted to the repayment of principal, before depreciation and before interest upon the advance—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether a restriction is also placed upon grants for the benefit of the breeding of horses?

Mr. MOLSON: I have no information on that point., but, in view of the fact that they did make grants this year, at a time when they are so insolvent, I assume that they are more or less in the hands of the bank, and that they have been allowed a ticket-of-leave to make a grant of something like £5,000 for the purpose for which they were originally set up. Until this year not a penny, so far as I have been able to detect, has been paid for that purpose, but a ticketof-leave has been given to the extent of about £5,000, perhaps in the hope that this Committee would be willing to give them increased powers in order that the bank may receive its interest and the horse-breeding interests may derive their grants in future.
This last year no provision at all was made for depreciation on their totalisators, but they did, after making no allowance for depreciation, make a profit of 2.6 per cent.; so that, if any reasonable depreciation had been allowed, the year would have ended in a loss and not in a profit. If all this debt had been incurred for the purpose of what was represented to-day by revenue-producing plant, then, indeed, it would not be a matter of great importance even if the debt was very high. The accounts, which I have been going over as best I can, are not very clear, but I notice that the accounts have been presented in a form approved by the Home Secretary, and although he accepts no political responsibility for the transactions of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, I hope that he will lay down rules which will require the board to present accounts which enable the House of Commons and the country to see exactly what the position is.
This year, for the first time, we find what the total value of the redundant assets is. It amounts to a little over £399,000. It is some shillings short of £400,000, and I have no desire to overstate my case. I notice that in the report no reference is made to that figure; all that is mentioned there is that this year the board has thought it right, in order to present accounts which will make quite clear its financial position, to set up this Redundant Assets Account, including an expenditure of £4,165 upon leaseholds. If, in any ordinary limited liability company, losses amounting to a few shillings short of £400,000 had been sustained, and in the report there was only a reference to a loss on leaseholds of £4,165, I think the shareholders of that company would have some complaint against the directors, and would say that the report at any rate was lacking in frankness.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but it is quite clear that I could not allow a reply to all these criticisms which he has been making of the general accounts of the board.

Mr. PIKE: On a point of Order. Surely this Amendment is whether or not we are to allow to remain in the Bill words which will give power to this very inefficient body to develop along lines which—

The CHAIRMAN: I must adhere to the Ruling which I have given. The hon. Member who is in possession of the Committee is, I think, quite capable of protecting himself with regard to that point.

Mr. MOLSON: I bow to your decision about these accounts. I only referred to them because they purport to be an account of the operations of the board, and I trust I shall be within the Rules of Order, as the Clause we are now discussing is to enable the Racecourse Betting Control Board to draw bets from off the course, in referring to some extent to their administration under the Act of 1928.

The CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member that I was unwilling to interrupt him. My real reason for doing so was that he seemed to me to be indulging in criticism of these accounts to which he was inviting the Home Secre-
tary to reply, and I certainly could not allow replies to detailed criticisms in regard to the accounts and general affairs of the board. Therefore, the hon. Member, although he was entitled, no doubt, to refer to his opinion of the management or mismanagement of the affairs of the board, could not go into a detailed criticism of it to which he could not expect any reply.

Mr. MOLSON: I entirely accept your Ruling. There is, either in this report or in the first one, a note that the accounts have been presented in a form that has been approved by the Home Secretary, and I thought, therefore, that I was entitled to draw attention to the fact that the reports as presented do not in my opinion make very clear exactly what the position is. But I bow most willingly to your decision on this point, and will not go into any further details. I hope, however, that the Under-Secretary, as I see that the Home Secretary is not now on the bench, will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the point.
As I have said, I have only referred to the accounts in order to draw attention to the past records of the administration of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. These losses, which at last have been admitted in the accounts, but which have been known to everyone who has been interested in the working of the Act of 1928 for a very long time. They were originally incurred because the Racecourse Betting Control Board put up a number of electrical totalisators which did not work. There was a perfectly good instrument, called the Julius instrument, which, for reasons which may be good—I have heard that there are good reasons—the board refused to adopt, and, as a result, they began experiments on their own account, and sank a large sum of money in putting up these new electrical totalisators. In the first place, they experimented for a long time, and as early as the second annual report we find that £104,000 had been spent on experimental plant which was not any longer in use. After that, an instrument was put up at Newmarket.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems now to be making certain allegations against the board, the truth or otherwise, or the importance or other-
wise, of which will not affect the Amendment.

Mr. MOLSON: As I understand the Act of 1928, Parliament set up a statutory body in order to give facilities to backers of racehorses to back otherwise than with bookmakers. It is the submission of those who are opposing the Clause that it was not at that time the intention of Parliament to enable that statutory board to draw bets from backers off the course. Subsequently, the Royal Commission advised that they should not be given that power. Under the Bill as put forward that statutory body is going to be given power to draw bets from backers off the course. According to the administration of that statutory body will obviously depend the return which the backers will obtain from that instrument and, therefore, when Parliament is being asked to extend the scope of operations of that statutory board, I submit that it is proper for the Committee to consider whether it has efficiently or inefficiently discharged the duties which have previously rested upon it.

The CHAIRMAN: I must compliment the hon. Member on his ingenuity, but I am inclined to think that his arguments are somewhat remote.

Mr. MOLSON: I will try most loyally to keep within your Ruling, Sir. The result has been that there has been put up in different parts of the country a. number of electrical totalisators which are now lying derelict. My second criticism of their administration is that, even in the cases in which they were fortunate enough to put up electrical totalisators which would work, they put them up upon such small racecourses that there was not the least possibility of their proving a financial success in any circumstances at all. At present there are electrical totalisators at Newmarket, Newbury, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Nottingham, and there are aban-doned totalisators at Cheltenham, Hamilton Park, Ayr, Pontefract, and Reading. I am not a very keen racing man in spite of the fact that I represent the Doncaster division, and until I was making researches into this question of the totalisator I had not so much as known that there were race meetings in some of these towns. In addition there are permanent totalisators at Hurst Parks
—another case where a machine was put up which originally failed to work and had to be replaced at great expense—and at Ascot, where the capital had to be supplied by the Ascot racecourse because by that time the Racecourse Betting Control Board had almost exhausted its credit.

Major COURTAULD: On a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in the House, but I have already said that I think the hon. Member's arguments, though he may be able to explain their relevance, are getting rather remote. Will he try to devote himself a little more closely to the actual point of the Amendment?

Captain A. EVANS: Are we to understand, Sir, that under your ruling those of us who are anxious to reply in detail to my hon. Friend's criticisms will be ruled out of order if we attempt to do so?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he was in the House, knows that when I first interrupted the hon. Member in possession of the Committee I told him that I could not allow detailed answers to be given to some of the criticisms that he was raising. That, perhaps, shows that, although it may be possible technically to say that his remarks are relevant, they are not of very much value. I hope he will not think for a moment that I meant that to be offensive. What I meant was really, repeating what I have said before, that they seem to me to be criticisms so remote from the question at issue that they could not have very much weight on the question whether the Amendment should be accepted or not.

Mr. MOLSON: I have for the last two years been looking for an opportunity of raising this matter, which I regard as of great public importance. It has' not been possible to do so before. I admit that I have found this to be the only opportunity within the Rules of the House that I have had.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member must realise that this is not an opportunity which gives him very much
scope. I really must ask him to devote his speech to the Amendment rather than to the point that he apparently wants to raise—a general criticism of the conduct of the Board.

Mr. MOLSON: In that case, I will conclude my observations on this point by saying that under this Clause a body which has not been a conspicuous success in the past is being given powers which it was not the intention of Parliament to give it in 1928 and which are in co[...]flict with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I hope the Home Secretary will be prepared to reconsider the line that he has taken on this point. There are many of us who feel that a great deal may be said for giving the backer the option of going either to the bookmaker or to the totalisator. But with the legalisation of the operations conducted by Tote Investors, Ltd., we are to have facilities brought to every town and village in the country to people to back with the totalisator on credit; there will be every inducement to Tote Investors, Ltd., to encourage more people to bet on the totalisator, and, if there be any underlying principle in this Bill, I understand it is, that, while not wishing to interfere unduly with the liberty of the individual, the Government are anxious not to give any facilities to private interests working for profit to exploit the gambling propensities of the public.

9.14 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: This is a difficult question. It seems to be one in which logic conflicts with right and wrong. I think the Home Secretary is right in wanting, as far as possible, to put totalisator and bookmaker betting in the same position. Credit betting with bookmakers is legal, and he wants to have this declaratory Clause that credit betting with the totalisator is legal. On the other hand, any of us who have investigated the dozens of cases that come to our notice of the breakdown and ruin of lives by betting know that betting is now a greater evil than drink. The temptation put in people's way for credit betting leads to the breakdown and ruin of lives. A man bets more to get back because he cannot pay what he has lost. This Sub-section will make it possible for this not very successful body to pay com-
mission to agents whose job it will be to lure, entice and persuade people to bet on credit with totalisators by telling them that they will get a straighter deal and a better chance of getting dog winnings than if they bet with bookmakers. To add to the lures of credit betting is surely a bad thing and one which we ought to avoid unless there be some very much stronger reason for it than the point of logic that you are bound to put the totalisator in the same position as the bookmaker.

9.16 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: It is a little curious that nearly all the support for the Amendment should have come from Members representing the Doncaster area, because Doncaster was the last racecourse in the United Kingdom to set up a totalisator, and there must have been considerable local opposition to it from the very beginning. If the Amendment were, agreed to, it would mean the end of the totalisator. As representing another racing constituency, Newmarket, I realise what a serious blow that would be to racing. Racing is a national sport and a fair and clean sport and very different from greyhound racing. I agree that, despite what is said in this Clause, there might have been some doubt as to the original legality of totalisator investments. Now the legality has been confirmed. We have heard a lot from an hon. Member opposite about mismanagement by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. I wish the hon. Member would realise the difficulties which they have had to face. In every other country racing takes place on certain racecourses a great number of times. In France there is Longchamps and many other courses where there is constant racing, and it is the same at Flemington in Australia, but here the Racecourse Betting Control Board have been faced with very heavy overhead expenses simply because they have had to set up totalisators on courses where there is comparatively little racing. I think that there is only one course where there is more than 16 days racing in a year. It must take a long time at that rate to get back some of those overhead charges. To turn to the point of view which the hon. Baronet expressed, even if totalisator investors spread all over the country, is that such a very great evil?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Commission thought that it would be a very great evil.

Captain HEILGERS: It would be a true temperance measure to take people off the drink. But, apart from that, the position is that if you had totalisator agencies in every town in England you would find, at any rate, that the men who bet on horse races would be able to get a very much more satisfactory form of betting. I would remind hon. Gentlemen that in the Royal Commission Report it was stated by the man who gave evidence on behalf of Tattersall's Committee that one of the greatest difficulties found by Tattersall's Committee was to get money from some of those agents who went in for the greatest amount of advertising, and, as a rule, those who advertise the most are those who attract the people. There is one thing which has not been mentioned by any Member. It is a recommendation of the Royal Commission. They strongly recommended that cash postal betting should be allowed for the totalisator.

Mr. FOOT: What is the page?

Captain HEILGERS: Page 128, recommendation (ix). It says:
The board should be allowed to receive cash postal bets at an approved racecourse where a totalisator is in operation, in respect of races being run on that course.
If that had been carried into operation, it would have meant a considerable decrease of revenue. They are being deprived of that increase of revenue by the present Bill despite the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The totalisator is absolutely necessary to horse racing, and I believe that even if they get money from off the course it is worth it. The totalisator is beginning to pay, and when it does pay it will mean that horse breeding and our veterinary sciences will get some of the profits which accrue from the totalisator. If there is no totalisator, people will not cease to bet. The only result will he that they will bet with some doubtful agencies.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have been particularly interested in this part of the Debate, because I happened to be a Member of the Committee upstairs which dealt with the setting up of the Betting
Control Board, and the hon. Baronet and I took a little part in handling that very difficult problem. The Home Secretary in this Bill is restricting, as far as be can, betting on dog racecourses. When he delivered his speeches in this House and upstairs that great Scottish character which is reflected in his face came out in all its violence against betting and gambling in all its forms. But in this Clause he is extending facilities for betting on horse racing deliberately. On his right hand is a great Evangelical churchman, and I am wondering what he has to say to these proposals. There is a Baptist preacher next to him. Here we have the trinity —faith, hope and charity—bringing forward a Clause in a Bill to set up, without any doubt at all, agents in every town and village in this country to help bolster up the bankrupt totalisators on horse racecourses. That is what we are doing.
When this method of financing the totalisator on horse racecourses fails, as I think it will fail, the Government will then ask us to give a subsidy to the Racecourse Betting Control Board. They have given subsidies to very unlikely bodies before. When they found some of their shipping friends in financial difficulties they came to their aid. When they propose these things in this Clause they have to remember that the Betting Control Board has some claim to glorification, because five Departments of State appoint members to the board. There are five representatives of State Departments on the Betting Control Board. I feel sure that these five gentlemen have induced this Government to give them a financial lift to cover up their incompetence in dealing with the finances of horse racing. The right hon. Gentleman has never said anything to help us understand this difficult problem. I know very little about this betting business except that which I heard in Committee upstairs. I thought we had touched bottom with money-lending but we descended lower still in dealing with the licensing problems. I have never met however anything so degrading to public life as dog racing.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this very good proposal. Some hon. Members express suspicion because this proposal was supported by so many Members from the
Doncaster area, where the racecourse is municipally owned. I am free from suspicion of having any contact with a municipally-owned racecourse. I do not like the argument of the hon. Gentleman about the difficulties of the Betting Control Board. If he had been in the House at the time he would have heard the arguments in support of that board, that horse breeding was suffering in this country, that veterinary attention was declining, that universities were not paying sufficient attention to stock breeding, and that something ought to be done to help the poor horses over the stile. Indeed, if any Members of this House cared to look at the Debates at that time they would be astonished to find how those prophecies have been upset by facts. They said that betting through the tote was cleaner, it was more modern, it was more decent, that bookmaking as such was old-fashioned with too much swindling and too much welshing about it. That was the thing that annoyed me most of all—the argument that in any case the tote could not do any welshing. It could not speak my language I suppose.
Then we were informed that provided we secured the tote on horse racing, then the whole financial transactions on these racecourses would be settled once and for all. The argument put forward in this House that this is a national sport is like the argument that this is a National Government. Somebody to-day reviled Nonconformity and Puritanism. The hon. Member should have heard the right hon. Member's speech upstairs when he brought all the forces of the Government from the Simonites to fee Samuelites to his aid. We take this Amendment very seriously indeed, because it is the one Clause in this Bill that does make betting look a little more respectable than it is at present. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his associates, especially those to the right, will regret the day when the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept this Amendment.

9.31 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: Like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I feel bound to say something on this Amendment. Like the hon. Member I was present in the House on the Second Reading of the Bill to set up the
Betting Control Board, and at every sitting of the Committee which considered that Measure I heard and remember the arguments by which it was carried. On the Floor of the House it was explained in speech after speech that there was no intention to legalise off-thecourse betting by the totalisator. On the contrary, when figures were quoted of horse racing betting, it was stated that the wrong set of figures had been quoted, including credit betting. The beauty of the tote under that Act was that it could only be used on racecourses on the days when horse racing takes place. Not for one moment would this House have agreed, if it had not been for the explicit understanding that the proposal the Government are now putting forward would not take place.
That being so, I regard this proposal not with doubt or suspicion, but with regret. Though I rarely quote Latin, this calls to mind one quotation, Facilis descensus averni. How easy it is once you start legalising betting, having passed it through the House of Commons only a few years ago on the explicit understanding that never would this off-the-course betting be legalised by the totalisator. The beauty of it was explained then. It was going to make a kind of happy afternoon for the wife and family of the working class. They would attend it like an innocent out-door party, enjoying it in the open air and watching the horses. There would be no shouting of bookmakers, but all would be done decently and in order. All the benefits enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, veterinary attention, breeding of racehorses, would follow, if only we could pass the simple measure of legalising betting only on the racecourses on the days when horse racing takes place. Now we are asked to do a thing which was never contemplated and against which we were assured we were expressly protected, when it was said that the totalisator should be used in connection with no other sport than horse racing. We are now told that it is necessary to introduce the totalisator on the dog racing track. Considering that in a very few years Parliament has been asked to make a complete volte face and to turn in exactly the opposite direction, how long will it be before we are told that off-the-course betting on dog races
is to be legalised throughout the country?
I am reminded of something that occurred last winter. I went through a part of my constituency on a dark and foggy night in January, and I saw what I knew to be a, sports ground brilliantly illuminated with arc lamps. It was bitterly cold, freezing and foggy and said to the driver of my car: "What on earth is this"? Who are they under those arc lamps"? He replied: "They ore running the dog races there now." I remarked: "What a humbug it all is. Why do not they allow them, if they intend that they shall gamble, to go into a comfortable and warm place and spin the roulette wheel?" They will be able to do that in a year or two because of the precedent that I have quoted. People will not need to leave their own fireside. They will be able to register their bets on dog tracks through the Tote Investors Limited, in every cottage home and in every tenement in the country.

Captain A. EVANS: Is the hon. Baronet aware that under the Bill off-the-course betting is illegal on dog tracks?

Sir B. PETO: Precisely. The hon. and gallant Member has not listened to one word that I have said. I thought I was clear in what I said. It is not legal now and will not be legal under this Bill. The Betting Control Act was passed on the distinct understanding that no off-the-course bets through the totalisator would be legalised. That being true of a Measure passed only a year or two ago dealing with horse racing, is it not likely to come true in regard to a Measure referring to dog racing? Members of the Government will be carried on to legalise betting off-the-course for dog tracks throughout the country and then we shall have really set up the roulette wheel wherever a working man may choose to operate it, even in his own home.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: The hon. Baronet has put the case against the Clause more forcibly and with greater knowledge than I could ever hope to do. What amazed me was the simplicity of the Home Secretary's reply. He said that they are allowing off-the-course betting in order to give tote facilities to those who have only previously enjoyed betting with bookmakers. What an excuse. This is a Measure which
purports to do away with the evils of gambling. In order to enforce his argument the right hon. Gentleman said that we had seen the growth of the tote clubs, that we had seen the tote club become a grave and growing evil. Can he not see a grave and growing evil in permitting Tote Investors, Limited, to establish branches in every nook and corner of the country? Can he not imagine the minds of the people responsible for the establishment of the betting machines putting them in the most humble rural areas and the most humble urban areas? Wherever there is a coin of the realm to be collected as a result of the natural betting propensities of the people of this country, Tote Investors, Limited, will not lose an opportunity of collecting it. The right hon. Gentleman says that they shall be allowed to do so simply and solely because the public must have the right to enjoy betting under a certain system, when they have previously enjoyed it in an opposite direction. The excuse is futile.
This Clause will bring ridicule on the heads of the Government more than any other Clause. What would the Under-Secretary have said if he had been sitting behind me, as he was a few months ago? I wonder if his support of the Government's attitude would have been as strong as it is to-day.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer is, yes.

Mr. PIKE: When one is immune from the effect of stones it is easy to say that we do not feel. I do not challenge the answer of the Under-Secretary, but I am positive that he hates and detests this Measure as much as any other hon. Member, with the exception of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) suggested that the totalisator was merely a method for making bookmaking respectable, or making betting respectable. If that were so, and the totalisators were confined to the courses and to the people on the courses at the time the racing took place, I should be inclined to say that they do tend to make betting respectable. But we are not now considering machine betting, which means the mere action on the part of the bettor placing his stake
and receiving, less 10 per cent., the total pool, but we are considering something which has developed into the depths of credit betting and more than the betting credit that has existed under the old practice with the bookmakers. The totalisator itself is a credit betting machine. I can ring up to any totalisator existing under tote control to-day and make a credit arrangement with those responsible for the management of that totalisator.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What about a bank overdraft?

Mr. PIKE: Credit betting on totalisators is as rampant, even more rampant, to-day than ever credit betting was with the bookmakers. There is one think which can be said in reply to the interjection. There is now a case in the newspapers in which a gentleman in London has allowed himself to get into debt to the extent of £1,800 with Totalisator, Limited, on credit betting. He cannot meet his obligations and has decided to plead the Gaming Act in order to escape his responsibilities. To what extent is that practice going to spread? I am anxious to stop the evil of betting and in my humble opinion the Clause extends the evils of betting, because it extends the facilities for betting, to a degree which is almost inconceivable. The right hon. Gentleman said, and apparently with some conviction, that it must be allowed because of the reason which prompted the Government to allow the establishment of the totalisator on racecourses. What did he say on Second Reading?
The Government in coming to the decision to maintain the legality of these payments were guided largely by the fact that, unless these were permitted, it would seriously affect the collection of the necessary money which we all desire to see used For the purpose of horse breeding.— [0FricIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1934; col. 1,146, Vol. 291.]
The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has caught that hare in its stride. What percentage of Totalisator Investors, Limited, activity is being used or will be used, or is ever likely to be applied, to the purposes of horse breeding? And is the necessity for horse breeding sufficiently great to justify this National Government, which possesses no mandate for this Bill, in allowing an extension of chain upon chain of these bet-
ting offices to be established throughout the country? If we are to have that let us be honest and say, knowing the consequences, "We will do without horses." After all, if horse racing does not exist for the specific purpose of betting there is no need whatever to breed horses in this country. That is the major use to which they are put. It has been said hundreds of times. It has been said by persons with a more intimate knowledge of the breeding of horses than I have, that if it were not for betting facilities horse racing in this country would come to a natural death to-morrow. Of course that is true. We may have one or two gentlemen who are not interested in the financial results of horse racing who are prepared for the good name of the old country to continue a stable, but how many owners of horses to-day can afford to maintain a trainer, or afford to maintain a horse in its own keep, unless there is the possibility not only of winning a £,100 handicap but also of gathering from the totalisator or bookmaker the amount they would receive as the result of a ten to one bet about what they know to be an even money chance?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Member know that there are some owners who never bet, who never make a penny, but who still make money out of their racing stables?

Mr. PIKE: If the hon. Lady was not so much taken up with her own thoughts, she would have known that that is precisely what I said. There are a few exceptions to the general rule, people who desire horse racing without betting, but in my submission the vast majority of owners could not afford to go racing at all if it were not for betting. While you must legalise certain forms of betting facilities on the track in order to maintain the support of the average Britisher, if you desire to check the general tendency of the betting evil you must at the earliest opportunity remove the Clause from the Bill or put something in which will prevent it from operating as it is intended to operate at the moment. The Clause disregards the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this matter.
The hon. Member for the Don Valley brought home to the right hon. Gentleman very forcibly the recommendation of the
Commission, and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who played such an important part in the early stages of the Bill, has asked the Home Secretary to reconsider his attitude towards the Commission's report. want to enforce those arguments by asking him whether in running directly contrary to the recommendation of the Commission in this respect, which I submit will create more betting facilities than anything else in the Bill, he has the whole-hearted support of the Cabinet in his action? From some of the statements of my leaders I cannot conceive that they can possibly support this increase in betting facilities in face of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who judged this matter not from the standpoint of affording facilities for betting with the totalisator but regarded the position from the point of view of public morality and well being, especially as it concerns juveniles. I ask the Government to reconsider the whole position. I am convinced that if it remains where it is you will have betting in every home up and down the country, under such conditions and operated by such a spirit as to create a real gambling problem, which no Government, not even the present Government, will ever be able to overcome.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope the Committee will now come to a decision. We have had a considerable discussion on this matter and I hope that we shall now get a decision.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: rose—

Sir J. GILMOUR: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER and Sir WALTER WOMERSLEY were nominated Tellers for the Ayes; but, there being no Members willing to act as Telllers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 71.

Division No. 384.]
AYES
[6.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
Remer, John R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Greene, William P. C.
Slater, John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Taylor, Vice-AdmiralE.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Templeton, William P.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Clarke, Frank
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Weymouth. Viscount


Clarry, Reginald George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Crooke, J. Smedley
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lees-Jones, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.



Dawson, Sir Philip
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dickie, John P.
Nunn, William
Captain A. Evans and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Pike, Cecll F.



NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Apsley, Lord
Attlee, Clement Richard


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Assheton, Ralph
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.


Albery, Irving James
Aske, Sir Robert William
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Allen, Lt.-Col.J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Atholl, Duchess of
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Banfield, John William
Goldie, Noel B.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Magnay, Thomas


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mallalleu. Edward Lancelot


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Graves, Marjorie
Mander, Geoffrey le M


Bernays, Robert
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman
Greene, William P. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Blindell, James
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Borodale, Viscount
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E,)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Grigg, Sir Edward
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mllne, Charles


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Milner, Major James


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Burnett. John George
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morgan, Robert H.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hanbury, Cecil
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tieS)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cape, Thomas
Harbord, Arthur
Moss, Captain H. J.


Carver, Major William H.
Harris, Sir Percy
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Munro, Patrick


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn, W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Normand. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir.J.A.(Birm.,W)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Chapman, Col,R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hepworth, Joseph
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) 
Owen, Major Goronwy


Chariton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Paling, Wilfred


Christie, James Archibald
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Patrick. Colin M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peake, Osbert


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horobin, Ian M.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pete, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n. Bliston)


Cooke, Douglas
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Sir Percy
Power. Sir John Cecil


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pybus, Sir John


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M (Midlothian)


Crossley, A. C.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Curry, A. C.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, Stephen Owen
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Denville, Alfred
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Ker, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Dobbie, William
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Kimball, Lawrence
Robinson, John Roland


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Dunglass, Lord
Kirkwood, David
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lawson, John James
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Elmley, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, Edward W.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leonard, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Evererd, W. Lindsay
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Scone, Lord


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Logan, David Gilbert
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fuller, Captain A. O.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lunn, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mabane, William
Skelton, Archibald Noel


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Gibson, Charles Granville
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Soper, Richard


Goff, Sir Park
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.




Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Thompson, Sir Luke
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Thorne, William James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stevenson, James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wills, Wilfrld D.


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Stones, James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Withers, Sir John James


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sutcliffe, Harold
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Tate, Mavis Constance
White, Henry Graham



Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 385.]
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glossop, C. W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Peake, Osbert


Albery, Irving James
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Pearson, William G.


Allen. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Goff, Sir Park
Peat, Charles U.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Percy, Lord Eustace


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greene, William P. C
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Petherick, M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grigg, Sir Edward
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Grimston, R. V.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ray, Sir William


Bossom, A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harbord, Arthur
Rickards, George William


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ross, Ronald D.


Brown, Cot. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burghley, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Howard, Tom Forrest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Carver, Major William H.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Salt, Edward W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jamieson, Douglas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, Dudley. J. Barnato
Savery, Samuel Servington


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Scone, Lord


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shaw, Captain Villiam T. (Forfar)


Christle, James Archibald
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Ker, J. Campbell
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Slater, John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Law, Sir Alfred
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J 


Cooke, Douglas
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cooper. A. Duff
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spens, William Patrick


Crooke, J. Smedley
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stevenson, James


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stones, James


Cross, R. H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Mabane, William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Daggar, George
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McCorquodale. M. S.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Denville, Alfred
McKle, John Hamilton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Doran, Edward
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Duggan, Hubert John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Eastwood, John Francis
Milne, Charles
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mitcheson, G. G.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Emrys-Evans. P. V.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, William Shephard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.



Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nall, Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Gibson, Charles Granville
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Sir Walter Womersley.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Connor, Terence James





NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Curry, A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Buchanan, George
Davies, Stephen Owen


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Banfield, John William
Cape, Thomas
Dabble, William


Batey, Joseph
Clarry, Reginald George
Edwards, Charles


Bernays, Robert
Colfox, Major William Philip
Emmott. Charles E. G. C.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cove, William G.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)




Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife. E.)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Templeton, William P.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
North, Edward T.
White, Henry Graham


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lanshury, Rt. Hon. George
Paling, Wilfred
William, Edward John (Ogmore)


Lawson, John James
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Leckle, J. A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Leonard, William
Pike, Cecil F



Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rea, Walter Russell
Mr. Isaac Foot and Mr. R. J. Russell.


Lunn, William
Remer, John R.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: rose—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to theTREASURY (Captain Margesson) rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 63.

CLAUSE 19.—(Illegality of lotteries.)

10.14 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, at the end, to add:
except lotteries promoted under the authority of His Majesty's Government through the Post Office or otherwise which have for their object the raising of funds for the reduction of the National Debt, schemes for assisting unemployment, national afforestation, the provision of open spaces for public recreation, or other public service or purpose.
The Amendment is one which I hope, after having heard a little discussion, the Government may see fit to accept. As they will know, it is a permissive one, the object being to retain in the hands of His Majesty's Government for the time being power to authorise a lottery, through the Post Office or otherwise, for any national object, including those which have been indicated in the Amendment. This is the law as it exists to-day and as it has existed in this country for some 300 years, and there would appear to be no reasonable object in altering the law as it has existed through all these centuries. If the law were to be altered, it would deprive any Government in future of the power that they now possess of authorising a draw through the Post Office for any national object, and it would require legislation to be specially passed to enable them to undertake that authority. Hon. Members will remember that the long series of Lotteries Acts which have been passed during the centuries from the time of Elizabeth, who was the first Royal patron of a national lottery in this country—a lottery for improving the harbours of the realm and other public purposes—have been
with the object of protecting the power to hold a national lottery. The prosecutions which have occurred in connection with tickets coming to this country from Ireland have been under Acts which were passed to prohibit the advertisement in this country of foreign lotteries in competition with a possible national lottery.
These national lotteries fell into disuse some 100 years ago because of the manner in which they were conducted in the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. Some of these lotteries occupied in the drawing some 40 days. There was great pageantry on the steps of the Royal Exchange, and, I believe, on the steps of St. Paul's Cathedral, and I am not sure that the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day was not one of those who assisted in the draw. Blocks of tickets were sold at a discount to contractors, who went about the country and who were known as "morocco men," because they had red morocco books of these tickets, which they vended through the country, but I need scarcely say that scandals of this kind, owing to the changes of manners and the whole change that has taken place in the last 100 years, would not occur were we to retain the power in the Government to have a national lottery.
May I tell the Committee what our proposal is, by way of an example? We propose that 10s. tickets should be on sale at the post offices of the country in the same way as the Loterie Nationale in Paris, that they should be on sale just like postal orders. Here is a ticket of the French lottery, which is in rather a better style than our own postal order. You simply go in and buy one at a post office. No one is compelled to do so, and it is suggested that they should cost 10s., 5s. of which would be divided up in prizes and the other 5s. would go to the State for any of those national schemes which I have indicated or anything urgent which the Government of the day might think fit. They would be in blocks of £1,000,000, of which £500,000 would go to the State and £500,000 would be divided in prizes. There would be no exploitation of the individual for private gain, and, as far as I can see, there can be no objection whatever to the proposal. We have been influenced in the form of the Amendment by a paragraph in the
report of the Royal Commission, which says, on page 131:
It is, however, material to observe that a State lottery has certain marked advantages over other forms of lottery. In the first place, if the existing State machinery were to be employed for the purpose (and we are aware of no special difficulty in the matter), the lottery could be conducted with low administrative costs. The tickets could be purchased at any post office at a small overhead charge. If at any time it were desirable to put an end to the lottery, no large private vested interests would have been created.
The Royal Commission evidently felt the great unpopularity which would fall upon any Government which introduced penalties prohibiting the taking of tickets in the Irish, French or other foreign lotteries, and at the same time did not give to the citizens of this country a lottery of their own. The Royal Commission made no similar rider in the case of other recommendations, as, for example, with regard to football pools or street betting, against which it made strong recommendations. The Government, on the other hand, have taken no notice of its recommendations with regard to football pools and street betting, but, on the one matter, where the Royal Commission has made a rider saying how simple a State lottery would be and how very little harm it would do the Government are apparently intending to force a prohibition of any kind of National Lottery through the House in the teeth of the strongest opposition throughout the country.
May I remind the Committee of the objects which the Government state they have in view in Part II of this Measure? They first state that they are not concerned in any way with the morality of betting and gambling. I ask then: Why do they alter the law which has obtained in this country for nearly 300 years in regard to national lotteries, and while retaining the law prohibiting people from getting tickets in foreign lotteries, give no British National Lottery in their place? Secondly, the Government state that they do not desire to interfere in any way with individual liberty. I ask then: Why do they interfere with the desires of millions of people who in no way wish to interfere with the freedom of other people? If the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) does not like lotteries, he need not go to a post office and take a ticket, so why should he interfere with the liberties of
millions of people who desire to do so when no possible harm can be done? The third object which the Government say they have in view is to find a solution of the problem which will commend itself to the great mass of public opinion. Is there a Member of the Committee who would say that this Bill—there certainly is not a Member on the Conservative benches—commends itself to the great mass of public opinion? It is impossible to say that it does.
If anyone desires confirmation of the view that the proposal of the Government is unpopular and that the country desires some form of national lottery, will they allow me to draw their attention to a few facts? First of all, some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 have left this country in the last four years for lotteries abroad, either in the Free State, in Paris or elsewhere. Secondly, whenever the question of the desirability or otherwise of having a national lottery in this country has been put before any body of people, other than a body specially organised for a contrary purpose, and these were comparatively few, there has been an overwhelming majority in favour of some form of national lottery under proper Government regulation and protection. Thirdly, the present House of Commons, in 1932, by a very substantial majority, gave a First Reading to a Bill proposed by myself and a number of other Members for the establishment of a national lottery for public purposes. May I remind my hon. Friends opposite of the famous "Daily Herald" hospital lottery offering £20,000 for 6d? I do not think the "Daily Herald" would have proposed it if they had thought that such a proposal was unpopular with their readers in the Socialist party.
In my own constituency of South Kensington, which has an electorate including 48,000 women, they are very much in favour of a national lottery. The annual meeting of the women's organisation of the National Union of Conservative Associations, held some two years ago, passed a unanimous resolution condemning the existing law and demanding some form of national lottery under proper control. I would also remind my Conservative friends of the conference at Bristol only a few weeks ago, when a proposal for a national lottery was carried with practical unanimity. I had
the honour of moving the resolution, on behalf of the South Kensington Association, and as I told a member of the Government the other day, the reception I had made me think for a few moments that I must be a film star. I need not say that it had nothing to do with me personally, but was for the proposal which I made to that great conference representing delegates from all over the country. I am giving these instances to show the House that this question has been considered and that a national lottery is desired. The Conservative clubs throughout the country, bodies of working men and others all through the country—in the London and Home Counties, Liverpool, Manchester, Westmorland, Cheshire, and South Wales—have unanimously passed resolutions in favour of a national lottery. I will read one sentence from the "Conservative Clubs' Gazette" published this morning:
In the Victorian era, when smug Puritanism ruled the roost, the prohibition of 'sweeps' might have reflected the public mind. But to-day there is a different and a broader outlook; a sporting spirit prevails, and the desire for a 'flutter' everywhere prevails. Even [Members of the Government must be aware of this, and yet, forsooth, it is sought in the Betting and Lotteries Bill, introduced under its aegis, to fly in the face of popular desires and make criminals of all who on and after next January have in their possession for sale any ticket for the Irish Sweep or foreign lottery, or who 'bring, or invite any person to send, into Great Britain any sweep ticket.' Even this, and the savage penalties for offences—fines up to £750 and a year's imprisonment or both—might be defended and excused if the Government provided a British substitute.
The paper goes on to say:
How much better it would he if we had a sweep to sweep away slums.
Hon. Members opposite jeer at the proposal. It may seem to them ridiculous, hut do they realise that in the last 11 months the sale of tickets in the French lottery has produced no less than £13,500,000? A good many slums could be cleared for £13,000,000, and who, I ask, would be the worse? The popular Press on the whole are probably good judges of the opinions of their supporters, and they are in favour of this proposal. The "Sunday Pictorial," which is read very extensively by women in this country, said a short time ago:
The proposal for a national lottery has the support we are sure of the great majority of electors. It is indeed time
something was done to put an end to the present farcical position. Other countries have their official lotteries and nobody seems to suffer morally. How much more satisfactory it would be for all of us if the Government provided us with a lottery of our own.
Now I will, if I may, refer to my own correspondence. I have had literally hundreds of letters from all over the country. I have here pages of extracts from them. People write to me because they know my views, and, as the Home Secretary is introducing a Bill with these savage penalties, they are not going to write to anyone of whom they are not very sure. The only way in which the Government's proposal can be enforced in future is by opening letters and a wholesale system of espionage. The people are going to have their letters opened, and they are not going to give their names away in advance. Well, that is my theory. Some hon. Members may get more letters than I imagine. I get hundreds. Let me read a few extracts. Here is one:
Every luck to your Amendment to the Lotteries Bill. The Government are apparently trying to commit suicide. I hope they will see reason in time and accept your proposal.
A woman writes:
I do hope your proposal will succeed. It should have been done long ago. I don't believe in backing horses and card gambling, but like many of my friends I like taking a sweep ticket when I want to.
Another says:
I congratulate you on your action with regard to sweepstakes. I hope you will still keep it up. I am a farmer and am a law-abiding citizen. I do not bet but I love a little flutter in a sweepstake. I have a brother that has his little bets. Can you tell me why laws should be made to allow him to bet, but yet laws made to stop me having my little ticket in the Irish or other sweepstake? Surely, Sir, the only fair way if you prevent me, is to prevent my brother from having his little bets as well.
Then he added a rather pathetic paragraph saying that his wife had recently died from cancer, and what a wonderful thing it would be if you could not only give relaxation to the people but also have a good bit of money out of which you could give something to aid Cancer Research.
A Birmingham working man writes:
I am a working man, at least when they will let me work, and have always made it a point to buy one ticket in the Irish sweep. Many times I have been almost
down and out, and, although I feel sure that I shall never win a prize, the fact that I may be lucky has kept me going. In fact I should have cut it long ago but for that. With all good wishes.
Just two more letters. The first is:
Please tell your colleagues in the House of Commons to leave us the privilege of spending our money as we like. There are four votes in our house, and we shall never again record one if we cannot get justice. We read of gentlemen going to race meetings, or telephoning to their bookmaker and backing their fancies. Why are we not allowed to bet our modest ten shillings in a sweep?
The last one I will quote is this:
For the past 24 years, I have been engaged as a collector, and I go into hundreds of working and middle-class homes every week, and I say definitely that the passing of this Bill into law, unless amended as you propose, will be the means of wiping out the present Government at the next election.
I could go on quoting all night; I am grateful to the Committee for listening to me so patiently. I have had hundreds of letters on the same lines. It seems to me that the Government—I have noticed it before with other Governments—with their great international and other preoccupations, get entirely divorced from the opinions that are circulating among the ordinary men in the street and in the cottage and in the village. The complaint, so far as I can find in going about the country, is roughly this, that 90 per cent. of the Members of Parliament do not themselves think there is any harm in a national lottery, and a large number of Members take tickets in lotteries themselves; but then, it is said, at the same time Members of Parliament are proposing to pass a Bill to prevent any form of national lottery from being undertaken in the future, because they hypocritically assert that they know better than the electors themselves how they should expend their savings.
I must not tell the story again, but hon. Members will recollect what, as I told the House on the Second Reading, the bricklayer down in Berkshire said—that if they wanted advice as to how they should spend their savings they would ask the missus and not Members of Parliament. I said to a Member of the Government the other day: "I differ from you with regard to India, but, if I were up for a club where you were on the committee, you would not 'pill' me because I differ from you on India; but
if I said to you, 'Why are you so mean? Why don't you give your wife a proper dress allowance?' you would say, 'What does that fellow want interfering with my private affairs? We will not have him in this club; he will always be interfering in other people's affairs.'" That is common sense. The Budget is beyond the ordinary working man; India is beyond the ordinary working man; but they all know whether or not they have 10s. over at the end of a week or a fortnight or a month, and they like to spend it in their own way without dictation.
Another important point is that the Bill is one which it will be impossible to enforce unless you have some kind of national lottery of this nature. The police and the Home Office, in the evidence which they gave before the Royal Commission, admitted that, notwithstanding all their espionage and opening of private letters—both of which are hateful to British people of all classes—notwithstanding all that, they cannot enforce the prohibition on taking foreign lottery tickets unless they have public opinion behind them. There is not a man in this country who would not rather take a ticket in a British Post Office lottery than send his money to Ireland, where it would be taxed by Mr. de Valera in order to get funds for the Free State while he does not pay its debt to this country. It is necessary to get public opinion behind these prohibitions, and, without that public opinion, this Measure, if it becomes an Act, will not be worth talking about, because it cannot be enforced. The ordinary citizen, as I have said, resents interference with his own personal affairs and his own personal liberty when
he is doing no harm to others. The Royal Commission realised this, for they said:
Stated broadly, we think the general aim of the State in dealing with facilities for organised or professional gambling should be to prohibit or place restrictions on such facilities only as can be shown to have serious social consequences if not checked. We regard it as of the utmost importance that no more prohibitions should be made than are absolutely necessary.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: On what page is that?

Sir W. DAVISON: I have not the page here, but will have it looked up. I submit that the only question which the
Committee have to consider is: Are the social consequences so serious and so demoralising in taking a ticket like this at the Post Office that we should interfere with millions of people in the country who desire that form of relaxation? There is no national demoralisation. There was no evidence given before the Royal Commission of the breaking up of homes or the ruin of individuals, no evidence by the Churches and the Salvation Army of the demoralising and pauperising effect on many millions of people. They referred to the evils of street betting, and what is known as doubling up —putting on 2s., 4s. and 8s. if you are not successful. They spoke seriously about football pools, for the reasons that were given yesterday, but there was no evidence showing that any body of people had been demoralised or their homes broken up by the taking of tickets in a properly supervised national lottery. May I remind the Committee of the evidence given by the Charity Organisation Society, which has more knowledge of the poor than perhaps any other society in the country? After giving evidence on the lines to which I have just referred, they say:
In conclusion, the society desires to emphasise that it has not expressed any opinion as to whether sweepstakes should or should not be legalised.
If they had found that this was breaking up homes and demoralising the poor, they would not have ended their evidence in that way. So far from increasing betting and gambling, it will have exactly the opposite effect and will decrease it. There is a human instinct, not only in this country but in all countries, and especially among the vast mass of our industrial populations who lead very dull and monotonous lives, that they want some kind of a flutter. The great bulk of the community goes to work and returns from it, like a shuttle, and there is nothing to take them out of that monotony. The writer of the letter I read does not expect to win, and he is not terribly crestfallen if he does not win, but he thinks there is a chance that he may be taken out of this dull routine. It is difficult for us here, with so many interests, with so many things to do, with so many points brought before us, it is difficult even for Labour Members, some of whom know more about it than we on this side, to realise how dull and monotonous many lives are.
The taking of an occasional sweep ticket, which is desired by millions of people, is just to stimulate hope. I had a letter from a doctor in the country three days ago who says, "If you only knew the value in health and mentality of these little fillips—the stimulating of hope." Until de Valera took part of the money of the Irish Sweep for his own affairs, I always took a ticket. I never won anything, and I did not suppose I ever would, but all the same it gave me a fillip of excitement. Mine is a busy enough life. How much more of a fillip does it give to the average worker?
Why should the Government interfere. It would do no harm and is desired by millions of our people? The State would benefit. Who would suffer? The Government are swallowing the camel of football pools and street betting and straining at the gnat of a national lottery because the millions who desire it are not organised and cannot speak for themselves. The Prime Minister the other day boasted that a National Government has secured freedom and liberty for our people whereas in other lands there are dictatorships, but liberty is not compelling the people to do what the Government think is good for them. That is dictatorship. Liberty is where there is freedom for the people to obtain and do what the people themselves desire.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: This is not a matter which is new to the House. We have debated it, as the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has said, earlier in this House when he was fortunate enough to carry a Motion, but he will remember an earlier Debate in the year 1924 when he brought forward a Bill upon the same lines, and that on that occasion, when the House was differently constituted, he was defeated in the introduction of his Bill. This Parliament, I recognise, is differently constituted, but the arguments are pretty much the same now as they were then. I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter without introducing irrelevant matters. We can discuss later whether or not it is right that large sums of money should go across the Channel. I object to that as strongly as the hon. Member for South Kensington, and I desire to stop that considerable export of money through the purchase of
sweepstake tickets, but I hope that that matter will not be introduced. I hope that the hon. Member will agree with me that that ought not to be used as an argument in favour of lotteries in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] We can take common ground in that we are opposed to the sending of this money across the Channel into the coffers of the Free State and still be opposed to lotteries.
I hope that the matter will not be complicated by the suggestion that we can deal with the cancer evil and carry out slum reforms by this method. If this country wants to deal with the troubles of cancer it should do it knowing what the expenditure is to be and that the expenditure is an honourable undertaking. I should be very sorry to see the campaign against disease in this country associated with cupidity and chance. The hon. Member has receded from his earlier position about hospitals. That is what we heard in earlier times. When the matter was debated in the House in 1924 his case was that we should support the hospitals in this country, as they were supported in Ireland, by the proceeds of the sweep ticket. He was still attached to the proposal when he introduced his Motion earlier in this Parliament, hut he has found that it is a very uncertain foundation for his case, largely because the hospitals of this country very wisely determined that they were not going to rest the great institutions for healing and the amelioration of human suffering upon the shifting quicksands of cupidity and chance. This scheme was not applied to hospitals because those who had to do with these great institutions knew that you could take no surer method of drying up the springs of charity, and that if you rested the hospitals upon this craze, which might be a temporary craze, when the craze had gone, the hospitals would be left the weaker.
The hon. Member is now talking not about hospitals but about social reform. I put it to Members of the Committee, that although at the last Conservative Conference there was a unanimous vote in favour of the proposal, I do not think that it would be fair to many of my Conservative friends to accept that position, for all that was put before the Conference was the speech of my hon. Friend.
If there were a free vote in this House and nothing were said by my hon. Friend, there might be a majority in this House. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) back in his place. I note that his name has been put down to many Amendments. I have missed him in his place. That is what happened at the Conference. I do not think many of the Conservative party, a party in which I have many friends, do anything but regret the necessity of discussing this proposal. Social reform in this country must be paid for by a people fully conscious of the burden they are carrying.
I should despair of the future of this country if it had to rest on these devices of tricks and cheating of the people by this gambling. It was a tragic letter that was read out just now. Gambling is the perversion of hope. Hope is one of the great virtues of life, and it is perverted by gambling. You can see the many ravages of this bastard form of hope throughout this country. Many countries reach the lowest stage of civilisation in their history when they rest upon this gambling method. Just now the hon. Member had the temerity to refer to the Royal Commission. He has appealed unto Caesar and to Caesar he must go. He himself stated that they had something to say about State lotteries. It is true that the Commission said that some objections to other large lotteries did not apply to State lotteries. With that concession they went on to condemn this proposal in unqualified language. He referred to the Royal Commission and I hope I can invoke some witness.

Sir W. DAVISON: I did not dismiss it. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I did not desire him not to refer to it. I was only dismissing something he said before.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I thought he was angry with me.

Sir W. DAVISON: Not at all.

Mr. FOOT: I could not bear to think that. We have heard in the course of the Debate to-day the argument whether we ought to rely on the Royal Commission. I certainly concede the argument that this House is master of its own business. The Commission con-
sisted of men of great ability, but we can decide these matters for ourselves. It would be a dereliction of our duty if a Royal Commission having been set up by the authority of Parliament and with the sanction of this House, and having made an investigation which was impossible to us, we did not give full weight to the report that it presented to us.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What about the Simon Commission's report?

Mr. FOOT: On the question of setting aside the Royal Commission as being unimportant we are prepared to argue it on the Floor of the House and in the country. The Royal Commission was not made up of partisans. They were people who came with an understanding mind and great business experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I say that they came with an understanding mind and great business experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Certainly the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) cannot claim to have had an independent mind.

10.57 p.m.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I gave evidence before that Royal Commission, and I may say that a. more biased crowd I have never met. The Commission had not one person on it who knew anything about gambling. I asked them what six to four on the field bar two meant, and not one of them knew. Certain members of that Commission had definite axes to grind. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I make no excuse for that statement. On any gambling commission you ought to have a gambler who knows something about the other side. On any drink commission you ought to have a drunkard. To say that the Commission was unbiased is not to state the truth.

Mr. FOOT: Whoever has the right to suggest that the Commission lacked independence of judgment, it is not the hon. and gallant Member.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: Do: not forget that I gave evidence before the Commission. On the Commission were chairmen of anti-betting leagues, chairmen of football clubs, and people who were sitting as chairmen of big
stores, who wanted to see money spent in the stores. I say to this House that the Commission was not unbiased.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: As the Commission has been challenged, I will deal with its composition. I said that there were people on it who were not partisans, who had been appointed by the Government of the day because they were able to bring an independent judgment to bear. The chairman of the Commission was Sir Sidney Rowlatt, one of the most distin-guished of our judges, a man who has not only presided over an inquiry like this in this country, but has presided over an inquiry into a matter of deep social concern in India, and did it with great credit to himsélf and with great advantage to this nation.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: Had he ever betted?

Mr. FOOT: The suggestion that a mail like Sir Sidney Rowlatt, one of His Majesty's judges, was a prejudiced person, is one which I suggest should never have been made in this House.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I beg to withdraw.

Mr. FOOT: The other names were Lady Emmott, widow of Lord Emmott, Mr. C. T. Cramp, whose association with industry, particularly upon the workers' side, is one which would give to him a very real title to speak, Mr. R. F. Graham Campbell, Mr. William Lionel Hichens, one of the big men in industry, Sir James Leishman, Mr. Alexander Maitland, an eminent counsel in Scot-land, Sir David Owen, Mr. Arthur Shaw, Sir Sydney Skinner and Mrs. Mary Danvers. I have omitted one name which comes after that of Lady Emmott, but I give it with confidence to the Corn- mittee and would like to know if the hon. and gallant Member includes him in his general charge. It is the name of Sir Stanley Jackson, who has led the English cricket team on the field, whose name means more than most other names in the record of sport in this country and who after serving as the Governor of a Province in India came back to this country, gave his attention to this work and signed the report. The hon. and gallant Member who very generously was
prepared to withdraw in respect of the Chairman might very well withdraw the suggestion he has made in respect of the other members.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I beg to withdraw.

Mr. HANNON: Is it in accordance with the Rules of the House that the qualifications of members of a Royal Commission should be read out and discussed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is unusual for the personnel of a Royal Commission to be challenged on the one hand and commended on the other, but, at the same time a Royal Commission is not a judicial body and therefore is not protected from criticism under the Rules of the House. It must be a matter of taste on the part of hon. Members.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: May I say that the names of the Royal Commission were not present in my mind when I rose to speak, and I have not looked at them for many months. If the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) suggests that I had the names in readiness, may I tell him that I had not, and that I had no intention of reading them to the Committee until the hon. and gallant Member made his charge. I am entitled, however, to refer to their recommendations, their unanimous recommendations. They say:
A large lottery represents gambling in its easiest form. It calls for no skill or knowledge and thus appeals to many who would not, for instance, risk their money in backing a horse. The purchase of a ticket is all that is required to obtain an equal chance of winning one of the large prizes offered. These large prizes are a dazzling lure to the ordinary man or woman. To all but a few thousand people in this country, a sum of £30,000 seems to offer a transformation of their lives.
They then go on to speak of the effect of large lotteries on character, and say:
Lotteries depend for their success upon the blatant advertisement of large money prizes. They tend to exult the results of chance and to encourage a belief in luck, while the draw and the announcement of the results give raise to an unwholesome excitement.
They go on to discuss the whole matter and their recommendations are set out on page 139, where they definitely and unanimously protest against the setting up of any large lottery in this country. They say:
Our conclusions are that there is no justification for assuming that there is a
sustained or insistent demand in this country for this type of gambling facility. The demand for the legalisation of large public lotteries in this country is based on insufficient appreciation of the difficulties and disadvantages involved.
The Commission came to their conclusions and made their recommendations accordingly. That was not the only conclusion reached. I ask the hon. Member for South Kensington whether this is not true: Not only does this Commission report against this way of raising money, but every time in the history of this courary for the last hundred years that any Commission has been asked to inquire into the matter it has always reported in the same terms. I ask my hon. Friend to go back to the inquiry that was set up in 1806. It was a Select Committee of this House. They were up against it, for they had actual experience of what public lotteries meant in this country. They said:
No mode of raising money appears to the Committee so burdensome, so pernicious and so unproductive; no species of adventure is known where the chances are so great against the adventurer, and where the infatuation is more powerful, lasting and destructive.
The Committee went on to say that the lottery system was radically vicious, arid committed itself further to the strong statement that it was quite impossible for Parliament to adopt any kind of regulation which would divest the lottery of the resulting evils. As a result of that report, made in 1806, lotteries were wiped out altogether in 1823. A little later, or not many years ago, there was another Commission set up to consider premium bonds in this country. When that Commission was set up it was thought that they were going to report in favour of premium bonds. After inquiry they recommended this House not to adopt that proposal.

Sir W. DAVISON: The hon. Member asks me to give him my attention. I pointed out in my speech that in the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century the thing had become scandalous. The lottery draws took 40 days. There were great mobs in the City of London. The whole thing became a scandal. There were "morocco men" going through the country with red morocco books and getting enormous commissions. But all that is a thing of the past. There are different manners
now; instead of all that we would have a simple draw at the Post Office with none of the advertisement. It would be something like the French national lottery in which there are only a few draws, numbers being taken from the first draw.

Mr. FOOT: As far as this country is concerned, in comparison with others, I like to see what Members of the National Government have said of late as to the proud position we occupy, and I would not like to see the public finances of this country put on a lottery foundation. It is a fair argument that whenever in the last century this House has asked any commission or committee to inquire they have always replied in the same terms, and have said that this is a dangerous way of raising money and that it has serious social consequences. When this Bill is introduced and has for its manifest purpose the implementing of the recommendations that were made by the Royal Commission, it would be impossible for this Government to act against the plain and unequivocal advice given by that Commission. If they did so, they might get the approval of a majority of the House of Commons but they would gain the permanent condemnation of every sober part of the thinking people of this country.
That is my belief. There is certainly no mandate for this and I am glad that the Government have already affirmed that they intend not to recede from that position. They know that there are strong forces which have been supporting them in this matter. Some Members of the Committee had the opportunity of hearing the representatives of the Churches and it is a very remarkable think how the Churches have been united in their representations to the House of Commons on this matter. If this Amendment were adopted, it would give them a message, not of hope but of disappointment. I am certain that the carrying of this Amendment would do more than anything else to bring down the Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rot"] The hon. Member for South Kensington has been quoting letters about the Government "committing suicide." Am I not entitled to say—

Sir W. DAVISON: My opinion is as good as that of the hon. Member.

Mr. FOOT: The difference is that the hon. Member was supported by hon.
Members opposite when he spoke. Because I give the contrary view, I am condemned by them. I suggest, however, in these, my concluding words, that so far from the Government being strengthened by the passing of the Amendment, such a course would arouse against them forces which they cannot estimate. I do not believe that a National Government, not representing one party but professing to represent all classes in the country, would accept an Amendment which, in my opinion, strikes at good order and continued progress and which would do what has not been done in this country in the course of the last 100 years.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have not taken part in any of the discussions of yesterday or to-day until now because I felt that the matters under consideration were being fairly debated from all points of view. We are treating this subject not as something about which the party as a party is united; we each have freedom to speak and to vote upon it and we have not given a party vote at all on these matters because we feel that, at least up to the present, the questions brought before us are questions upon which men differ considerably. This particular Amendment and the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison)—who put his case both forcibly and logically from his point of view—raises a question, however, which is of more importance than anything else in the Bill. We are proposing here, in a way, to nationalise betting and gambling. In my opinion the growth of gambling in this country and especially in the place where I live, in the East End of London, is one of the most terrible evils of the day. Nowadays children are betting. If this Amendment were carried and it became known that the House of Commons had said that we needed a national lottery for the purpose of dealing with the National Debt and unemployment and the other matters mentioned in the Amendment, it would justify every man and woman and young person who at present often ruin themselves by gambling in one form or an other.
I have often said in this House that although people like me are not guilty of, or, rather, do not indulge in, either
betting or gambling, we have probably got other vices or sins, about which people know nothing. I want to say that, because I hate to be considered self-righteous. I have never had a bet in my life, but then I have never saved any money in my life, and I do not put it from that point of view, but I would like the Committee to take my word that I have known scores—I think probably hundreds—of young fellows who have been absolutely ruined at the very beginning of their lives by the very insidious nature of arguments such as those put forward by the hon. Member opposite. Yes, they have had the hope, they have believed, that one more plunge would bring them home. One of the judges said lately to a prisoner who was up on very big charges of embezzlement, or, rather, of fraud of some sort, that the excuse he made was exactly the excuse that is made by every gambler who in the end stoops to thieving or fraud in the hope that a final plunge will bring him home. I cannot imagine that the hon. Member realises quite what he is doing by this proposal. We are not really arguing the rights and wrongs of private people in this matter; we are arguing whether the nation should sanction this sort of thing, whether, for the first time in modern history anyhow, Parliament should put into an Act a proposal to raise money by a lottery, which is gambling.
I most earnestly hope, in spite of the great reception which the hon. Member received when he was making his speech, that his Amendment will not be carried. I do not take much stock of what happens at conferences, neither do I trouble very much about pulling the Government down or keeping it on and on, because, honestly, if I can only make the Committee see it as I see it, this is far beyond any question of whether we pull the Government down or keep it up. It is the morale of our people. I believe that the thing that is wrong with us as a nation, the thing that is wrong with us in the world, is that all of us are trained to think it is better that we should get something for nothing than that we should earn our bread in the ordinary way. The children are taught right away that it is a fine thing not to work with your hands, but to work with your head. I think it is all wrong, and one day we shall have to go
right back and teach our children that earning one's bread, even by manual labour, is one of the most worthy ways and worthy of the same recompense as other ways of living. The real thing is that if we enter on this proposal, we shall be teaching our children that the nation is only able to maintain itself by indulging in what is, after all, sheer gambling.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I should not have intervened in this Debate had the only speech from the Opposition been that of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Profoundly as I disagree with parts of it, it is not primarily the case against the Amendment which I rise to support. Naturally, we agree with a great deal that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that the conclusions he draws are correct. He has talked a great deal about children gambling. That is itself a mixed evil. He has ventured to quote —and who has a better right?—his own personal experience. May I, with humility, quote mine? I started to gamble on horses when I was about 15. I found it was unpleasant to lose shillings at that age, and it taught me not to lose pounds when I grew older. That is a point of view worth considering. This Amendment does not really deal with the incitement to gambling among the young. The point of the Amendment—and this is the crux of the question—is that we have in this country what, for want of a better term, I might define as a gambling instinct. There are a large number of people who, whatever laws we make, will bet. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the evils of betting in the East End go to show that the street betting laws are not kept. Betting, legal or illegal, goes on.
The question which the Committee has to decide is whether an uncheckable vice or evil—if we like to call it so—is to be regulated and acknowledged, or made illegal and illicit. I do not believe that anybody, even the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot), believes that if this Bill goes on the Statute Book as it stands, it will check people partaking in lotteries. It will make it illegal; it will involve a system of search, to which the
hon. Member so much objects; it will involve all the evils of the agent provocateur, the detective, and of spying round and trying to detect an evil which it is impossible to detect.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member voted for that last week.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I am going to deal with that point shortly.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The hon. Member referred to me. What I think is that if the inducements are not so many, betting will not be so extensive.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understood what I said, but I accept his interruption. My contention is that whatever law we pass we shall not effectively prevent this particular form of gambling. We shall only make it subterranean and illegal. The choice which the Committee has to make is whether an evil is better left subterranean and unregulated, or acknowledged and disciplined. The purposes of my rising, which was engendered by the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin, was to remind the Committee of the question, which he is always so anxious to stand up for, that of the freedom of the individual. Of course, it is always a question how far the liberty of the individual can be allowed to impair the good of the whole. That is a question in all our deliberations. Last week we were debating another Measure to which the hon. Member for Bodmin took the gravest exception, saying it was an assault upon the liberty of free speech. I contend that this proposal in this Bill is an assault on the liberty of free action, and I unashamedly hold the view that free action is more important than free speech.
I do not believe that we shall get a wholesome country by saying, "You can say what you like but you cannot do what you like." As a constituent of mine once said of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), "She has not yet realised that it is no satisfaction to me when I cannot get a drink at half-past three because it annoys her that she can make a speech at half-past three which annoys me." We have to decide in this Amendment—and it is very important, really the vital matter—whether,
when we are having all this talk about free speech, we are also entitled to defend free action. The hon. Member for Bodmin—I take him not so much as a personal case, but as representing wholeheartedly and sincerely a point of view in this House, though one with which I profoundly disagree—takes the line, "It does not matter what people say, but you must fetter them in what they do if it is opposed to the morals of the nation." I disagree. I do not believe that we can check betting, and I do not believe that it is desirable to do so beyond a certain limit.; but if we have to put up with an evil thing I would rather see it open and acknowledged, rather have it regulated and properly controlled, so that the country can see how it is managed; and then, if it be a ramp, they will know that it is a ramp and not take part in it.
This is the crux of the matter. Do we propose to drive this business underground and have it carried on by hidden processes? I am talking now not to those who, like myself, believe that we should not over-protect a citizen against himself, who think that if he wants to spend his money on a lottery ticket or a bet he should be allowed to do so. It is as harmless a vice as spending it on buying the "Daily Herald" or, if you like, the "Daily Express" or on whatever intellectual vices hon. Members opposite may engage in. I am talking to those who believe this thing is an evil and I ask "Are you going to drive it underground; are you going to have it as a hidden thing, with a continual combat against the law; or are you going to have it an open and acknowledged and controlled amusement?"—or vice, whichever you like. I do not challenge the right of the hon. Member for Bodmin to talk on behalf of the Churches which he represents, or to quote Church opinion, but there are those of us holding a contrary view who claim to be as good Christians in our way, and as good churchmen as himself. They hold the view that it is better to achieve salvation by going through with the temptation and facing it than by having the temptation prevented by law, and better to make people good by precept and experience than by rigid and excessively restricted statutes.

11.31 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I think there is a danger of our laying too much stress on
the moral aspect of this Amendment. If we start talking about the moral rights and wrongs of gambling we shall be here all night and still get no farther in consequence. What we need to consider is the economic aspect of the Amendment. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and I went to the Treasury last summer and the hon. Member put forward his scheme. It was definitely turned down by the Treasury officials on economic grounds.

Sir W. DAVISON: Forgive me for interrupting. I went with the hon. Member to the Treasury, and we put forward a scheme in the nature of premium bonds—

Lord APSLEY: My scheme.

Sir W. DAVISON: The hon. Member's scheme, and also a scheme for a lottery. The Treasury, as they always do, took the dignified attitude that British finance was not dependent upon such methods as lotteries. They said in the end: "If you want to do anything, we would prefer a lottery to anything in the nature of premium bonds." I said: "We never suggested that the finances of this country were going to be run by lotteries or premium bonds. We only said that as it is a matter of sport in which a large number of people want to indulge, it is much better that the Treasury should have the use of the money than private adventurers."

Lord APSLEY: I think I am right in saying that the Treasury officials definitely turned down any scheme of State lotteries on economic grounds and on the ground that, as they maintained, it would endanger the credit of this country. Premium bonds, they said, would not have the same effect, but they could not answer for any political consequences. The Government have taken the view that this matter of the Irish Sweep, which is evidence of the growing desire to gamble, can best be dealt with by law, that is, by suppression. They believe that by taking away the opportunities of advertisement and the opportunities for the ordinary individual to get tickets easily and to fall intotemptation to get something for nothing in a very pleasant way, the lottery idea may fall into disuse. They may be right or wrong; my own view is that this should be given a
trial to see whether the Irish Sweep idea does fall into disuse arid whether or not money is diverted into investing and other uses. I am a bit sceptical. I am afraid that the Irish Sweep, particularly in view of the enormous forces that appear to be driving it along, may be driven underground. It may work very hard in this country, putting pressure on hon. Members of both sides of the House, and touting in various ways, through sinister advertisements and with agencies in villages or at street corners. I am a little afraid that that may be the case—that the gambling fever may be driven underground and may flourish almost as some of the religious sects in the Middle Ages flourished when they were suppressed by the forces of the Church and of the law. That may or may not be the case.
Let us remember that the law is always founded on equity, and that you cannot enforce any law against the desire of the people. As a small illustration of that. I would mention the question of rear-lights on bicycles, which the police with all their forces tried to enforce, but found that they could not, simply because people would not light the rear lamps. That is only a small illustration of what has frequently caused the fall of dynasties and Governments. Should it be the case that the law is unable to deal with the Irish Sweepstake and other forms of gambling or lotteries with which the Government wish to deal in this Bill, I would ask them to consider the possibility of the alternative of producing something run on sound lines which would give better value for money, and which would not encourage the gambling instinct, but rather the investing instinct, of the people.
What I have in mind is something on the lines of tickets drawn on sweepstakes in connection with the major events in the racing world, on which the Irish Sweepstake relies—that is far better, to my mind, than an ordinary lottery—run by an independent and properly constituted association or board. These tickets, which would, I admit, be rather on the lines of premium bonds, would each be divided in half. Supposing that the tickets were for 10s., one-half of each ticket, of the value of 5s., would carry the possibility of a prize, less a small proportion for running expenses
—which I am sure could be made far smaller than in the case of the Irish Sweepstake—and the other 5s. would be invested in a savings certificate bearing interest at 2½ per cent. That would mean that the buyer of the ticket would not lose his 10s. but would be actually investing it at 1¼ per cent., and there is no trustee whose lawyer would not agree that that is the safest and best form of investment. This is only an idea, and I do not put it forward for consideration at the present moment. I support the Bill, and hope that the Government may be successful with it, but, if they are not, I beg them, to consider, if they fail to suppress this desire for gambling, that there is that other alternative which was mentioned by my hon. Friend who spoke last, of guiding the spirit into channels where it is safe, and where the ordinary men and women of this country cannot be exploited, but can put their money into a form in which they get a full return.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I intend to support my hon. Friend in his Amendment, but I should not like to do so without trespassing, though only for a few moments, on the Committee to explain the reasons which lead me to take this course. I certainly do not consider that the national finances stand in need of support from sweepstakes, lotteries or premium bonds. The national finances proceed entirely apart from the subject which we are now discussing. It is rather from the moral and ethical aspect that I think the House ought really to look at the blunt facts of the situation. I must confess I find myself completely puzzled to know what is the standard that is being set up in matters of betting and gambling. We have been discussing 20 or 30 Clauses of Part I of this Bill. I have been here a great deal, and I have given a great deal of thought to this matter. It seems to me a very extraordinary thing that the House should take it as quite a right and proper matter for them to occupy several days to deal with all the details of setting up hundreds of casinos for dog racing all over the country in which courses are to be run on 104 days in the year, and consider what proportion might be taken for the rake-off and so-forth, and indulge in all these discussions blissfully unconscious of the
fact that they are legislating for and establishing the evil thing of betting and that when they have finished Part I of the Bill and a proposal is put forward to have two or three large national sweepstakes on great sporting events people should say, "But that would be encouraging betting. That would be countenancing the evil idea of gaining something for nothing—unearned increment—and naturally, defenders as we are of the morals of the nation, we cannot lend ourselves to that." What nonsense! Of all the forms that gambling can take, the purchase of a 10s. ticket in a great national sweep, like those that are so unpleasantly conducted for us from a neighbouring island, that is the least injurious and the least likely to lead to a family being ruined—a workman returning home without his wages.
I entirely associate myself with the mood in which the Leader of the Opposition approached the matter. It is a dreadful thing that people should be ruined and led into crime by betting and gambling, but they are far more likely to be led into crime by going night after night to dog racing establishments than if they buy once or twice a year a Hs. ticket, or a proportion of a, ticket, in a great national lottery. The very character of these competitions is such that no one can lose much money upon them. How rarely they take place! It is no good trying to buy a great number of tickets in a competition in which there are millions of chances.
What is the alternative? Do you think you are going to stop this thing? You cannot stop it. Even if you ransack the mails till you destroy the privacy of the correspondence of His Majesty's subjects you will not succeed in preventing it. You will only drive it underground It is a very unreasonable position into which we are being led. It is a position that is accountable to no theory of logic or morality that is represented in this Bill. It may well be that the existence of three or four large national sweeps a year would diminish the amount of money hazarded on gambling. The lives of many people who are at work nowadays are very monotonous. Their toil tends to reproduce itself with exact mechanical rotation and routine. Hour after hour a particular piece of labour has to he done. In my judgment this to a certain extent
would be an anodyne which would diminish the amount of gambling that would take place and not increase it. There are many admirable and useful causes to which the fruits of such a competition could be devoted.
There is one other thing I wish to say before I sit down. I understand that the Government, following their usual practice, refuse to allow a free vote of the House. I cannot understand why they refuse to do so. One of the greatest mistakes which the Government make is the taking of more upon themselves than they need in a matter affecting the interests, opinions and social habits of the people about which we are just as good judges as any Government. We are representatives of the people. We are Members with constituencies comprising 30,000 or 40,000 constituents and are re-acted upon by opinions from the constituencies. We cannot bring those opinions to any consciousness when the Government Whips are put on and Government pressure is brought to bear upon them. I cannot understand it. Where, again, is the logic of your talk? You talk about democracy and respect for the will and wishes of the people. You would not hesitate to ask the opinions of the people who are returned to Westminster whether it was the League of Nations or any other great and complicated problem. Of them you would say, "It is a matter for their good judgment." But when it comes to this question about which they are just as capable of forming an opinion, and about which they have thought a great deal, and in which scores of thousands, and millions perhaps, are deeply interested, we say, "No, we must be the angels. We must come down from on High and guide them into the true channels and proclaim for them the great modern gospel at which our Parliament has now arrived, that you may ruin yourself on 104 days in a year by gambling on the dog course, but if you take a 10s. ticket on a Derby sweep, then you are lost beyond redemption.'"

11.57 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I confess that 1 have listened to the rhetoric of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) with the usual pleasure with which we listen to the speeches that he delivers, but I ask the Committee to
consider for a moment whether anybody who has had the responsibility of being a Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country should come down to the House and ask hon. Members to say that the decision on an Amendment of this kind, which directs that the Executive Government of the day, whatever it may be, has to take on the responsibility for doing something which he well knows that during his period of office at the Treasury was contrary to the interests of the Treasury, and contrary to the interests and greatness of this country, should be left to a free vote of the House.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. The Home Secretary is not quoting the Amendment which I put down. It is a permissive Amendment and leaves the law as it is at present.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot accept that statement of the understanding of the Amendment. It presumes to be permissive, but, in fact, what does it do? It takes the matter out of the authority of this House and leaves it for decision whenever His Majesty's Government may choose. It is desirable that we should come back and consider this problem from its historical aspect and the actual circumstances of the present time. The history of the problem has been referred to on more than one occasion in this House. It has a long history. It has touched vitally, through many periods, the lives and interests of the people of this country. It is quite certain that State lotteries existed in this country in past times. They became so vicious, not only from the commercial and credit point of view, but the moral, that those who lived in those days were forced by public opinion and necessity to appoint a commission to look into the problem. It is a matter of history that the City of London, speaking not from the moral but from the business point of view, came to this House and put their case so strongly that it was accepted, and followed by an announcement in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. From that time these things ceased. On all these matters there are men and women, irrespective of party or circumstance, who take diverse views. What is the
more recent history? There has been growing in this country certain factors that have caused grave disquiet. Is it not true that the Royal Commission appointed to look into the problem called evidence of all kinds from people in every class of life, whether with real knowledge of betting or of social reform? They listened to all the evidence from every side and to every point of view. They approached the problem, as they stated when they began, with an open mind. They were prepared to examine it without bias and with some pre-disposition to think that some relaxation in the law on the subject might be made.
May I at this point say what is the law? All lotteries of whatever kind, large or small, are at the present moment illegal. It is true that some of the least harmful lotteries and sweepstakes have been by custom winked at, but as the law stands to-day, and has stood for a long period past, every one of these things is illegal. Let me add: Is it to be said that Parliament is not to see the executive administer the law as decided by Parliament up to the present time? As the Minister responsible for the control certainly of one section of the police force and a very large part throughout the country, I suggest that it would be grossly unfair that this House should not be perfectly fair and frank on the problem.
Now the question as to whether the Government themselves should run a lottery is a matter for the Government to settle. The Government have considered the problem, and, having considered it in all its aspects, have decided that it will not take that responsibility. Let me ask Members whether they think it is really a desirable thing that the Government should run a lottery, whether through the Post Office or any other Government Department, in which they will take contributions to a game of chance from people many of whom are not really able to or are not in sufficiently fortunate enough circumstances to afford? In what kind of position is a Chancellor of the Exchequer going to be, if every time he has to carry out a particular service there is to be talk on this indefinite and uncertain problem? I cannot conceive that any sober-minded Member of the House should desire to set up a system which would be so unequal and uncertain in its working.
The Royal Commission recommended very strongly against a large general lottery. The Government feel that you cannot prevent people gambling, that you cannot prevent them taking tickets in lotteries and chances, but we have accepted the decision of the Commission on the main problem. We are continuing in this Bill the existing law in regard to the large lotteries, but for the first time we are declaring that other lotteries of a smaller nature shall be legal. This is not a Bill of repression. This problem has had to be looked at from a great variety of angles. There is probably not a club in any part of the country or a trade union that is not doing something illegal to-day. What the Government are determined to do is to have no part or lot in a large central lottery.

Sir W.DAVISON: Why not?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Because in the first place we do not think it is good business and in the second place we think that it would lead to an infinity of evils, which has been proved in the past.

Sir W. DAVISON: If people want it, why interfere with the will of the people?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Do not talk to me about the will of the people. What is the will of the people? This Bill was produced many months ago. It has been discussed up and down the country and I have no reason to suppose that it has been the will of the people that a large Government lottery should be undertaken.

Sir W. DAVISON: What about our own Party Conference?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We recognise that there are circumstances in which it is reasonable that the kind of Christmas draws which are connected with many trades unions and with other clubs ought to be legalised. They are kept in a smaller area and are for a definite purpose. There is something in them which is of benefit to the working men and the club. The Bill will legalise also the kind of draws which are for the purpose of helping a good social object, such as my hon. Friend might desire to do, but we feel constrained to limit it to these smaller efforts. There is the larger question of money going out of the country.
I think it is unfortunate that the flow of money should go, as it does, to another country, whether it be Ireland or any other. We are taking powers to try and tighten up the regulations in regard to this matter. It may well be that that may prove not to be as effective as some hon. Members have suggested, but we are honestly trying to make the administration possible and reasonable. In these circumstances I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

12 m.

Mr. G.BRAITHWAITE: Although it is now midnight I am going to ask the indulgence of the Committee for two minutes, because I feel that it would be unfortunate if we went to a Division in the state of confusion in which the Home Secretary has left it. I wish to reinforce the powerful appeal of the right hon. Gentleman for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that a free vote of the Committee should be allowed on this important question. I do so in the interests of the Government themselves. When my hon. Friend tabled his Amendment I looked up the Division lists on his private Bill when it was introduced in March, 1932, in order to discover those hon. Members whom we might find with us in the Lobby to-night. I found a large and distinguished company, including the Patronage Secretary, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the hon. Members for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer), Grantham (Sir V. Warrender) and Kingston-onThames (Sir G. Penny); in fact, most of the Whips who are going to be put on to-night. That being the case how can the House of Commons preserve its dignity to-night and carry out the sorry farce of the big battalions marching up from the smoke room on the ringing of the bell to defeat a proposal endorsed by the conference of the Conservative Party and upon which strong views are held in the country? Whatever may be the attempt to whip us into the Lobby by those who endorsed the proposal two years ago, I hope that hon. Members will assert the independence of the House of Commons to-night when the Division is taken.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 219.

Division No. 386.]
AYES
[10.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Albery, Irving James
Duggan, Hubert John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, William


Apsley, Lord
Eastwood, John Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzonl, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gibson, Charles Granville
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Boulton, W. W.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Martin, Thomas B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Greene, William P. C.
Milne, Charles


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Grigg, Sir Edward
Mitcheson, G. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Burghley, Lord
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon, F. E.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Gunston, Captain D, W.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Burnett, John George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, William Shephard


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hammeresley, Samuel S.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Carver, Major William H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nall, Sir Joseph


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Harbord, Arthur
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peake, Osbert


Christle, James Archibald
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pearson, William G.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Horobin, Ian M.
Peat, Charles U.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Penny, Sir George


Colman, N. C. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Petherick, M.


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson. J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cooke, Douglas
Jamieson, Douglas
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cooper, A. Duff
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Copeland, Ida
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ray, Sir William


Cross, R. H.
Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rickards, George William


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Denman, Hon R. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Ronald D.


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lindsay. Noel Ker
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Doran, Edward
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Runge, Norah Cecll


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Spens, William Patrick
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stones, James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Scone, Lord
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Womersley, Sir Walter


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Slater, John
Thorp, Linton Theodore



Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Commander Southby.


NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Palling, Wilfred


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Batey, Joseph
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Pike, Cecil F.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Buchanan, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Lanabury, Rt. Hon. George
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn Sir A.(C'thness)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leonard, William
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Cove, William G.
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, s.)


Debble, William
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Edwards, Charles
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Milner, Major James
Mr. Isaac Foot and Mr. T. Williams.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 387.]
AYES
[12.4 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Greene, William P. C.
Pike, Cecil F.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Christle, James Archibald
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Salt, Edward W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Tate. Mavis Constance


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)


Donner, P. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fox. Sir Gifford
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. [...].
Sir William Davison and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.


Goff, Sir Park
Nunn, William



NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKie, John Hamilton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Magnay, Thomas


Apsley, Lord
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Aske, Sir Robert William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Cot. Sir M.


Assheton, Ralph
Gibson, Charles Granville
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell
Graves, Marjorie
Milne, Charles


Bernays, Robert
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding)
Mitcheson, G. G.


Blindell, James
Grigg, Sir Edward
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale


Boulton, W. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
North, Edward T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, Terence James


Browne, Captain A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Parkinson, John Allen


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Harbord, Arthur
Patrick, Colin M.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peake, Osbert


Cape, Thomas
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peat, Charles U.


Carver, Major William H.
Hepworth, Joseph
Penny, Sir George


Cazalet. Thelma (Islington, E.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Petherick, M


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horobin, Ian M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Colman, N. C. D.
Horsbrugh. Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.


Conant, R. J. E.
Inside, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cook. Thomas A.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooper. A. Duff
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Copeland, Ida
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Cross, R. H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jones, Lewis (Swansea. West)
Rea, Walter Russell


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Curry. A. C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rickards, George William


Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lawson, John James.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leckle, J. A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dickie, John P.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lovat-Fraser., James Alexander
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dunglass, Lord
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lunn, William
Scone, Lord


Edwards, Charles
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mabane, William
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn Sir A. (C'thness)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McCorguodale, M. S.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Thompson, Sir Luke
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
White, Henry Graham


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J 
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Stevenson, James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Stones, James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



Sutcliffe, Harold
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Templeton, William P.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Sir Victor Warrender and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Motion made and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That The CHAIRMAN do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

CLAUSE 10.—(Establishment of totalisators on dog racecourses.)

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dixey.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that the two Amendments standing in my name—in page 10, line 17, after "for," to insert "any person authorised by," and in line 18, to leave out "or any person authorised by him," —are not to be called?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that those two Amendments are intended to pave the way for the hon. Member's later Amendment—in page 10, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(2) It shall not be lawful for the occupier of any track, or for any servant or agent of his, to have any financial interest in or to own any totalisator in operation on any track, or to make any dharge for the right to operate a totalisator on any track.
I intend to call that Amendment, and accordingly I think it will be better if the discussion takes place on what is the substantial Amendment rather than on the smaller details.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, after "totalisator," to insert "in a fixed position."
I move this Amendment formally in order to ask exactly what is meant by the mechanical electrical totalisator.

Sir J. GILMOUR: When I saw this Amendment on the Paper at first I was at a loss to know what it was really designed to achieve. I think the hon. Member can be reassured that the type of totalisator is undoubtedly a mechanical totalisator and, therefore, must in the nature of things be more or less of a fixture. Certain portions of it might be removable from one course to another, but that would probably not be in many cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(2) It shall not be lawful for the occupier of any track, or for any servant or agent of his, to have any financial interest in or to own any totalisator in operation on any track, or to make any charge for the right to operate a totalisator on any track.
The Royal Commission recommended, first, that the owner or owners of any track ought to have no share or lot in betting transactions that occur. They also recommended that the totalisator should not be restored to greyhound tracks. Clause 1 has already determined that the totalisator shall be restored. The right hon. Gentleman will probably tell the Committee that, in view of the fact that the number of days has been reduced from an unlimited number to 104, we ought not further to trespass upon the rights and privileges of the occupiers or owners of greyhound tracks. My view is very clear and definite that the owner of any track ought not to be permitted to have anything to do with, and cer-
tainly not to be able to make money out of, the betting transactions that occur on the track.
The object of the Amendment is simply this: The totalisator may be on the greyhound track but is only to be operated by some person or body, apart from the owner, who will run it at their own[...]sk. One part of the Bill definitely debars the owners from being interested in bookmaking or betting of any kind. If it is unfair for the owner or occupier of a track to participate in gambling through the agency of bookmaking, they ought not to be permitted to participate in gambling through the agency of the totalisator. If the Committee desire to provide the backer with alternative means of investment, the totalisator will be there but the owner will be divorced from, it, and to that extent a good deal of the evil will be disposed of. The position is as follows: The totalisator now will be restored to every greyhound track that desires to use one—there is no compulsion to have it—but it shall not be owned run and controlled by the people who own and occupy the track. It should be transferred to some body which will undertake to comply with the Bill and take the chance whether they make money out of it or not. We know that free rides, fr6e entry, free competition and free nurseries have been established by owners of tracks who owned and ran the totalisator.

Mr. KNIGHT: Since the totalisator is a mechanical contrivance, which is operated usually by accountants, what fear has the hon. Member in his mind?

Mr.HOLDSWORTH: Would it not be possible for a company to be formed under another name by the same people even if the Amendment were carried? Further, what does it matter to the investor to whom the totalisator belongs as long as there is one there?

Mr.WILLIAMS: In reply to the first question, I do not doubt the honesty of the owner or occupier any more than that of anyone else. The only point that I have in attempting to transfer the totalisator to some other person or body is to remove the betting interest away from the owner of the track. Under the terms of the Bill the licensing authority will have the power to appoint an accountant who will examine
the funds of the totalisator, so that there is no doubt at all in my mind that the transactions will be strictly honest and fair. I return to the point that, if we prohibit the owner or occupier from directly or indirectly having an interest in betting through the agency of bookmakers, we ought to be logical and declare that he shall not have an interest in betting through the agency of the totalisator. If they owned the totalisator they could encourage women and children to the tracks so that they might ultimately benefit as the result of betting.

Mr. KNIGHT: I understand the hon. Member's object. I am only suggesting that, as the totalisator is a mechanical contrivance which the owner cannot manipulate, his fears are groundless.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has missed my point. There is a vast difference between the totalisator being run by the owner of the track and by some other body. As long as you leave the power in the hands of the owners to take an interest in gambling transactions, clearly they will devise all sorts of ways and means of encouraging people to attend their track. The Home Secretary has already rejected an Amendment to impose a minimum charge of 6d. If the owner has a financial interest in betting by means of the totalisator, he will allow free entry to the track, knowing that what he loses in that way he will gain on betting transactions. He will organise a charabanc service, collecting and transporting people free of charge, knowing that the betting will ultimately repay him. If, on the other hand, some outside body has charge of a totalisator, you must first of all assume that they have satisfied themselves that it will pay them to run it before they undertake the job. The words in the Bill with regard to the owner of the track and the bookmakers are "interested directly or indirectly." Therefore the owner of the track could not establish a subsidiary company to run the totalisator, as that would be breaking law.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It has struck me that, if the totalisator were taken over by a separate company, none of the owners of the track being shareholders, they themselves could take steps to give free entrance by some kind of distribution of tickets and the point would not be met.
Provided that they did not take above a certain amount, which is to be allowed to them in this Bill, there would be nothing in the law to prevent them from taking steps to accord to these people entrance by the distribution of tickets. I cannot see that the evil would be remedied.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member seems to have missed the point. If the owners of the track have only one source of income, that is payment through the turnstile, they will, of course, insist on a charge for admission. That, therefore, limits the attendance.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we shall get on better if the hon. Member is allowed to develop his own argument.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should like the Committee to be quite clear on the point, because I regard it as one of the most interesting and important on the Order Paper. To see the track as it probably will be, you must imagine the totalisator owned by the occupier of the track. He is, therefore, permitted by law to have an interest in betting transactions, and he will make it his business to encourage by every means the maximum number of people to attend, even to the extent of allowing free admission, knowing that what he losses on admission he will gain on betting transactions. If, however, the owner or occupier of the track has no interest in the totalisator, if he is to make the track pay at all he must charge for admission, and that will be the only source of revenue apart from charges made on the bookmaker and any rent that may be charged on those running the totalisator. It is because I want to remove from the owner or occupier any interest in betting transactions that I think it will be far better for the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that the owners of the track shall have no part or lot directly or indirectly in the betting transactions that take place.

Mr. LOGAN: Clause 15 gives power to revoke a licence if a track has been conducted in a disorderly manner. Is there anything more likely to cause disorderly conduct than someone playing about with the mechanisation? If mechanisation is played about with and people are disorderly on the track, is revocation to take place? Would you make the management
pay a penalty in regard to the operation of the totalisator?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Obviously the owner or occupier would not delegate the power to use the totalisator to people other than those in whom he had the fullest confidence. If the owners of the track could delegate powers to a person or persons to run the totalisator, they must satisfy themselves as to the capabilities of the person to whom they delegated such power. I cannot see the possibility of any confusion or disorder or of the owners of tracks rendering themselves liable to revocation or cancellation of their licences at all. The point is simply whether we shall leave the owner or occupier with an interest in betting on the track or not. The Amendment is really moved in the interests of the proprietor of the track.

6.47 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I have not intervened in the Debates before, because I have not taken a strong line either way. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), but I am not sure whether the Amendment would succeed in carrying out its objective. When he gave us the case of the track where admission might be free in order to attract people, surely it was founded on a misconception as to the limit of profit the totalisator can make. As the Government intend to allow more profit, I think from 3 to 6 per cent., it shows that the margin must be very small in running the totalisator, and if that be so, it is very unlikely that the proprietor of a track who owned a totalisator could afford to let the public in free. He took the point of the bookmaker. The bookmaker's profits are not limited, while the profits from the totalisator are limited. I should have thought that, as we have cut down the days to 104, and as the limits of the totalisator are being very strictly enforced in the Bill, we ought also to remember the public. Surely, the public go to a greyhound track and desire to bet, and they ought to be entitled to bet under the fairest conditions. If you do not allow tracks to own the totalisator, then, as the profit will be so limited, it is doubtful whether a separate company would put up the totalisator. If you do not put up a totalisator you will make the public bet with the bookmaker, who is unlimited as to profits. Therefore, I
suggest that with the best intention in the world, the hon. Member will not succeed in carrying out his ideas if the Amendment be carried.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to find out exactly his purpose, which was the frank one of reducing the attractions for betting. I do not think that he discriminated sufficiently between the bookmaker and the totalisator. The bookmaker is interested in the result of the race, and the totalisator is not. It does not matter to the proprietor of the totalisator which dog or horse wins a race. He receives a percentage deduction, and all the rest is paid out to the people who have put their two shillings or whatever is the sum into the machine. Therefore, there is no self-interest.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that the machine, as a machine, has no interest in the race, yet the owner of the machine has an interest in the volume of the transactions.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The whole point was that the hon. Member said that because the bookmakers must not be run by the track owners, therefore, the totalisator must not be so run. I am pointing out that there is no connection between the two. If the owner of the frack runs a bookmaking business, and he is a corrupt person, he will do his best to arrange for a certain dog to win. Therefore, you do not get honest racing. Whatever our views on this subject may be, we all desire, if people are foolish enough to bet, that the race should be run honestly, and that their judgment, whatever it is worth, shall have due reward if they are successful. We want honest racing. One of the reasons for prohibiting bookmaking being controlled by the management is that the bookmaker has an interest in every race. It is quite different with the totalisator, where there is no interest in the result of a race.
The hon. Member says that the track owners, in addition to obtaining admission fees from the public, also make a profit out of the totalisator. I do not know whether they would make a
great deal. I do not know the significance of the proposed Amendment of the Home Secretary concerning the percentage of deductions, but we are given to understand that that eminent body, the Racecourse Betting Control Board, which is allowed 10 per cent., has succeeded up to now in losing about £2,000,000. We have been told that they are making it up, but they have not made it up yet. They have not done very well up to now, and, therefore, I do not see that these people, on a 6 per cent. basis, will be able to ladle out a great deal of money. The hon. Member said that because the owners make money out of the totalisator, the number of people attracted is likely to be increased. If track owners have to depend solely upon entrance fees they will have to indulge in every device of publicity and advertisement in order to get people to patronise the track. The whole tendency will be for them to do everything in their power to increase the attendances at dog tracks.

6.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: As the Bill reads now, the owner or occupier is allowed have a 5 per cent. rake off, and that may mean to him either a few pounds or many thousands of pounds, and he will be entirely dependent upon the number of people who attend the track and pay for admission. Therefore, it is true to say that it will be for the owner to advertise as much as possible for people to come in and bet on his track, and make the entry through the turnstiles as free and easy as possible. That, frankly, is the position I want to stop. I support the view of the Royal Commission on that matter. Therefore, I have every sympathy with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I should like to ask him a question upon it. Although it says in the last line that it would be illegal
"to make any charge for the right to operate a totalisator on any track," would it, on the other hand, under his Amendment, be illegal for an independent holding company which would presumably be set up under the scheme, to give some attractive monetary allowance to the owner to allow the particular company to have the right to set up a totalisator on the track. If it would not prevent that, we should still be faced
with the problem of a financial interest on the part of the owner in totalisator betting, which I am out to stop.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I have not agreed with my colleague the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) during the whole of these discussions, and I am not able to agree with him now. The Amendment says:
it shall not be lawful for the occupier of any track, or for any servant or agent of his, to have any financial interest in or to own any totalisator in operation on any track, or to make any charge for the right to operate a totalisator on any track.
I have been trying to realise during the Debate on those words whose track it is. Who finds the money for the track? Who is taking the risk, and who is to guide the destiny of the track? Do not let us get on to the puritanical side of the question, but let us deal with a business proposition as plain, simple men. I would ask hon. Members whether as business men they would care to have as much interference in the conduct of their business as is introduced in this Bill? If hon. Members were to say that no such tracks should be in existence they would be talking sense, but I cannot understand the position when they say that there should be this and that regulation in carrying on this sport. If people are not fitted to run the business, the question of character will be considered when they make application for a licence. Is there any Member of this House who would like to be treated in the same fashion as we are dealing with these people? If hon. Members do not want dog racing, then they should get rid of it. I should then say that they were logical. But the moment we start to legislate we have to make provision for these people to carry on.
It is no use goody-goody hon. Members in this House thinking that they are going to make the best of two worlds by this method of dealing with dog tracks. They will not be able to do it. I am surprised at our simple Front Bencher, who does not know the least thing about dog racing, coming forward with an Amendment of this kind. He absolutely knows nothing at all about dog racing, and in his simplicity of mind has come forward with an Amendment like this. This is not personal, and he knows it. He can
trounce me as much as he likes, and I am prepared to take it. In Doncaster they have a wonderful racecourse belonging to the people. I wonder how the hon. Member would like it if it were a dog track and somebody else manipulated a machine while he was held responsible as licensee if there were any disorderly conduct. I have been only once on a track with mechanism, and, to my mind, if the machinery went out of order there would be more chance of disorder than if the dogs went wrong. It is nonsense that a man who has a track must not have the management of it. If you think people are going to manipulate tracks and as owners are not going to have anything out of it, you are living in the wrong world entirely. If one owns a track and carries it on under proper conditions, everything fair and square, then there ought to be a fair return for the expenditure. That being so, the best thing is to relegate this Amendment to the archives of the House.

7.2 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: Might I come back to the Amendment? I think one can see the object behind it, and, quite naturally, there must be a good deal of sympathy with it. The question is, will it work? The object is to prevent people who have equipped and are occupiers of the tracks having any financial interest in the totalisator. One can see the point of that. But I am very suspicious of the general principle of making things illegal when one cannot see how their legality is going to work. I cannot see any penalty here, and it does not say what is to be done if the Amendment is not complied with. It seems to me that whatever you may say, you will be able to get behind a thing of this kind. You cannot prevent people who are going to own and run these tracks obtaining an interest in the main thing that will produce money, the totalisator. I think that it would be really quite easy for people running tracks to be largely interested in the totalisator although this Amendment has been passed. The Amendment, in the absence of penalty, would be infringed, for nobody could be brought to book. Actually the person who will get something out of the profits of the total isator will be the landlord. He could make an arrangement, a friendly one, for a contribution in the form of rent which could be perfectly legal, or make a charge
for allowing the totalisator to be on the track. You could not prevent that. Surely one is certain that those who offer most for running the totalisator at a place will get that right. In fact, there will be an overlapping of interest, very often an identity of interest, whatever legislation this House chooses to pass. I sympathise with the object. If I could see it being carried out, I should be more willing to support it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the right hon. Member whether he has noticed Clause 13, which deals with the occupier of a licensed track, the servants, agents, etc.? There is no material or subtle move behind the Motion. Although these words may not be the last word in legal or political virtue, if the general principle could have been accepted by the Committee, both the offence and punishment could have been designed.

Sir F. ACLAND: Clause 13 is largely eye-wash, and this is, too.

7.5 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This discussion has its points. May I say at the outset that, of course, the attitude of the Royal Corn-mission was an attitude quite frankly when discussing this problem that they would not grant the totalisator to dog tracks. Therefore, when dealing with this problem they went on to say that it was undesirable that the owner of a track should have an interest in betting. They had in mind the question of bookmakers. I think it is quite clear there is a fairly practical line of demarcation between these two problems. In the one case you are dealing with the bookmaker who can make such profits as he can. It is in this Bill very clearly laid down that he shall be allowed to practice, but that there shall be no direct profit by the management in what they may get out of their betting except the charge for an entrance fee, on which there is a limit. The Government have departed from the recommendation of the Commission and decided they would be prepared to grant totalisators to greyhound tracks, not that they desired to give particular gifts to the industry running tracks, but that the public should have a reasonable alternative.
It is clear that if the public are to have a reasonable alternative, and if
you set up machinery of a mechanical nature, there should be strict regulations. It is obvious that there will be a cost incurred, and it is, therefore, reasonable that those who operate this machinery shall at any rate be permitted to have a limited rake-off in order to meet capital charges. We have looked at this problem very carefully, and, as the Committee will see in Schedule 1, we have very carefully said that the manager who may employ somebody else to run it shall have his character and respectability taken into account fully by the licensing authority when granting a licence. We have tried when requiring tracks to obtain a licence to prohibit the track management from bookmaking by limiting the amount of profit obtained by the track management from the totalisator. I am well aware that by giving the totalisator to the tracks we are conferring an immense benefit on the management who are going to run these tracks. The only question is whether you can find any machine—and I do not think you can—which you can operate there with the limits we are imposing, in which the objects can be achieved as stated in the Amendment. It is clear that the track can make no charge on Mr. X or Mr. Y for putting up a totalisator or for operating it. It is unthinkable and impracticable that anyone will be able to carry on this work without making some material contribution to the management. I think it much better and much more above board to have the thing in the form in which it is in the Bill, because we are safeguarding it as far as it is right and proper.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We are, naturally, very sorry to hear the decision of the Secretary of State on this Amendment. I sincerely trust that he will be able to look at this problem more closely than he has done. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not in his place. He compared the totalisators on dog tracks with those on horse tracks. The comparison does not hold good, because under the Bill there will be 104 days legalised for dog tracks and the total number of days for horse racing on any one track never exceeds eight per annum. That argument, at any rate, falls to the ground. Then he made the strange proposition
that the owner of the track would be satisfied with the 6 per cent, that he obtained from the totalisator, and he could not see any necessity left for him to induce persons to go to the track by advertising. Having been in Committee upstairs for several months, I can say I have never seen any section of the people in this country so avaricious as the people behind this dog business. I do not know of anything that would satisfy them so far as money matters are concerned. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) must not mind my saying what I think about this business. It is not a business but a commercial abortion. To compare it to any other retail or wholesale business commodity is wrong.

Mr. LOGAN: What I did say was that thousands of people had ventured their money into it and expected to get a return. I maintain that.

Mr. DAVIES: It would be a little infra dig for two Members of the same party to quarrel. Therefore, I will leave the matter there, except to say what I have said on many occasions that I protest against men who, knowing the inherent weaknesses of their fellows, group themselves together with the deliberate design of making profit out of that weakness. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted the principle laid down in the Amendment, because some of us feel that if there is any blemish on this Bill—I think the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will agree with me, the gift of the totalisator to the dog tracks is the greatest blemish of all.
It is understood by all that dog racing in this country could not continue for a day were it not for betting operations on the tracks. The Government have made a gift to these people by allowing every dog track to put up a totalisator. The Government have declined to all-ow the occupier or owner of a dog track to have any vested interest in the human bookmaking, and that is a very good restriction. Once you have prohibited a vested interest in the human bookmaker on the part of the dog track owner, there is no argument why he should have a vested interest in machine bookmaking. I think the point raised by the hon. Member for
South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) is covered by our Amendment. We provide that no person owning a dog track shall have any financial interest in any subsidiary company that may be formed to establish a totalisator. However, the right hon. Gentleman has given his decision. It is not for me to suggest what the hon. Member for the Don Valley should do with regard to his Amendment, but if he decides to go to a Division I shall go into the Lobby not merely in favour of his Amendment but to make a protest, as I shall do at a later stage of the Bill, against the granting to these people of the right to establish totalisators on dog tracks.

7.20 p.m.

Colonel GOODMAN: The Amendment would defeat one of the ends which its Mover has in view. He said that he wanted the people who went to the tracks to have a choice between the machine and the human bookmaker. As I read the Amendment the occupier or owner of a track is to have no financial interest in the machine nor is he to be allowed to make any charge for the right to operate the totalisator on any track. In short, he is to have no financial interest in the machine. These machines cost a lot of money to erect, and that. would mean the outlay of a lot of capital upon which he would get no return. According to Clause 12 the occupier of a track is permitted to charge the human bookmaker five times the ordinary amount of admission. It seems to me to follow that the occupier or owner of the track rather than lay out a large amount of capital for the erection of a machine from which he would get no return would be more likely not to put up a machine at all, but to charge the human bookmaker five times the amount of the admission fee. Therefore, the people who visited the track would not have the choice of betting with the mechanical or the human bookmaker, but would be limited to betting with the human bookmaker, and that would defeat the object which the hon. Member said he had in view in giving a choice.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the statement of the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I hope that he will look further into the question between now and the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I recognise that brevity is the soul of wit, and therefore I will formally move the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the Amendment were carried, the effect would be to leave the bookmaker entirely in the hands of the track owners. The Sub-section provides that the occupier of the track may not exclude the bookmaker as such. If we take out those words, it would mean that the occupier of the track would be able to do exactly as he liked. I do not think that that is what anyone would wish.

Mr. LOGAN: I thought it better not to say what I knew, and to move the Amendment formally.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: The previous Amendment having been withdrawn, I should like to know what is the effect upon the present Amendment and whether the Home Secretary will answer the case that I am about to put. A track in my own Division is not owned by a dog racing company but by a cricket club and a body of shareholders, who allow the use of the track by the proprietors of the dog racing company at a rental. If any individual shareholder who is part owner of that track attempts to set up a business on that track either as a bookmaker or as part owner of a totalisator, apart altogether from the totalisator controlled or owned by the people who run the track, will there be any contravention of the Act, and, if so, for what guilty action will he be held responsible?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not appear to me that the hon. Member's question arises on this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, at the end, to add:
Provided that no person shall be guilty of an offence under this or the immediately preceding Sub-section—

(a) in respect of any failure to comply with any of the provisions of that Schedule which is due to a bona fide mistake or is accidental or is due to any breakdown or stoppage of the totalisator not attributable to the wilful fault or
922
negligence of the person by whom the totalisator is operated; or
(b) in respect of any failure due to any unauthorised or illegal act of any servant or employé of the operator clone without his knowledge or sanction."

This Amendment is one of some importance, and I think it is comparatively non-controversial. It deals entirely and completely with the question of errors of calculation on the totalisator. As the Bill stands to-day, supposing any mistake of a trifling character is made on the totalisator it is not only a breach of the provisions of the Act, but it is possible that because of that small mistake the licensing authority may withdraw the licence from the track. Anyone who is connected with the totalisator realises that mistakes are made and made fairly often. A clerk may pay out 2s. 3d, instead of 2s. 6d., or 2s. 9d. instead of 2s. 6d. Moreover, a wrong dividend may be declared. I believe there have been a number of cases where it has not been discovered until afterwards that the wrong dividend has been declared. I think that has happened at Ascot. In case hon. Members may consider that calculations are easy in regard to dividends on the tote, I would call attention to one matter which shows how difficult the calculation is. Suppose you have a dead heat for a place on the totalisator, how is that decided? It is decided under the Racecourse Betting Control Board's rules in the following way:
In the event of a dead heat for a place not causing payment of a dividend on an additional horse or horses the dividend will be calculated as laid down in Rule 13. In the event of a dead heat for a place, as defined in Rule 1 (r) causing payment to be made on additional horse or horses, the dividends will be calculated as follows: After deducting the determined percentage from the Place Pool and the sum represented by the total of the winning bets on the horses occupying a full place and half the total of the bets on the horses, if two in number, running the dead heat (or proportionately if there are more horses) the balance will be divided into as many parts as there are places, as defined in Rule 12.
I quote that provision to show how extraordinarily easy it is to get confusion in the calculation of a dividend. I should hate to be called upon to deal with such a matter under Rule 13. It is most complicated. All we say is that in regard to a bonâ fide machine it would be a great advantage to put in the addi-
tional safeguard which we suggest as a guide to the licensing authority. It would certainly be a help. In regard to paragraph (b), that is a slightly different matter. We ask that there should be protection against the dishonesty of any servant or employé. Under the Bill as it stands if an operator tries to swindle the manager and the case comes out it may operate against the track, and the management may be tempted to conceal things in order to avoid the possibility of their track being barred by the licensing authority. Under the Companies Act companies are protected against the acts of their own servants and against the mismanagement or tricks of certain persons, and we suggest that the same protection should be given in regard to a totalisator on greyhound tracks. It is a small matter, but, as it is in the interests of the fair operation of the totalisator, I hope the Government will give consideration to it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. MACQUI STEN: The Amendment does not weaken the Bill in any way; it is a very fair proposal. It allows the proprietor of a track an opportunity to show that it was a bona fide mistake, that it was an accident, due to the breakdown or stoppage of the totalisator, which was not attributable to his negligence. That is a fair proposition, and the Committee ought to accept it readily. In paragraph (b) the proposal is that a man shall not incur vicarious liability. In ordinary civil life a master is responsible for the misdeeds of his servant as they might affect other people, but when it comes to offences or acts of misdemeanour against the regulations the master is protected. It would be entirely contrary to common law to make an owner responsible for any unauthorised or illegal act of an employé, which might be done maliciously in the teeth of his
instructions. I have known of such cases. I remember the case of a disgruntled employé who deliberately endeavoured to lose a licence by breaking the regulations of the Licensing Acts, but an enlightened magistrate in that particular place tumbled to the fact that it was being done maliciously, and the employer managed to get free of the charge. If you do not have some provision of this kind in the Bill there is always the chance that the person will be victimised.
This proposal does no harm, no guilty person will escape, and it will give an opportunity to an innocent man of proving his innocence, an opportunity which we should give to anyone under any regulations.

7.33 p.m.

Captain A. EVANS: I only intervene in order to correct a wrong impression which may have been conveyed by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes). He referred to mistakes in the totalisator and mentioned Ascot in particular. It may interest the Committee to consider how misunderstanding might arise on that particular point. The practice is that immediately any race is concluded a piece of paper is handed by the totalisator manager to the representative of the Press showing the odds which are to be paid on the winner, and immediately the representative of the Press telephones that information to London. It often happens that a mistake occurs in the transmission of the message by telephone, and subsequently when a wrong dividend is published in the newspaper and the attention of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is drawn to the error, they immediately write to the newspaper concerned pointing it out. Without going into details, I think what the hon. Member had in mind, as far as Ascot is concerned, was an error of that nature. In regard to the calculation of the dividend, the practice of totalisators operated under the auspices of the Racecourse Betting Control Board will be the practice adopted on greyhound tracks. As soon as a race is over and the number of units on each course is certified by the manager of the totalisator—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not
think that we can go into a long discussion as to how the totalisator operates. The only object of the Amendment is that, should a mistake be made by the totalisator, the onus should not be on the proprietors.

Captain EVANS: I was endeavouring to submit how in certain circumstances it is unlikely that error will take place. The Amendment is directed to the calculation of the dividend.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whether the error be due to a human or mechanical breakdown, I do not think we can pursue the argument as to how the error
has occurred. We must assume that error is possible, and discuss the question as to whether these words shall be inserted or not.

Captain EVANS: I will not pursue the matter further, but I wanted to emphasise the point that the dividend was a human not a mechanical calculation, and the mistake would be checked by the accountant employed by the local authority.

7.37 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I desire to support the Amendment as being reasonable and fair. A short time ago we discussed the position of a proprietor and a bookmaker. If a bookmaker continues his business against the regulations, the proprietor is absolved because we have already provided in Clause 1, that
where the occupier of a track is charged with an offence by reason of a contravention of this section on the part of another person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that the contravention occurred without his knowledge.
I think it is reasonable that the same protection should be given to the proprietor of a track where a totalisator operates. The same principle is involved. We have heard how mistakes may occur, but the proprietor does not seem to be protected in the same way that he is against illegal acts on the part of a bookmaker. The mistake may be a malicious mistake on the part of a disgruntled servant. It may be the case of a man deliberately wrecking the working of the totalisator, yet the unfortunate proprietor of the track would have to suffer. If the offence was of sufficient importance the licensing authority could shut down the track and in any case it would have to be taken into consideration when the renewal of the licence came up for decision. It is a reasonable Amendment and I hope it will be accepted.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: Before the Under-Secretary indicates the attitude of the Government to the Amendment, I want to put one argument which I hope will appeal to him. Yesterday we were discussing the conditions under which greyhound tracks should be licensed, the various conditions which should be fulfilled before a licence is granted; the amenities of the district, health, the situation of the schools and traffic problems.
On that occasion the Under-Secretary said that it was useful that local authorities, in granting these licences, should have some guidance in the Bill as to the kind of conditions which should be fulfilled. These powers arc, of course, discretionary, and it is very unlikely that any licensing authority would go to the length of shutting down a track completely on account of some error in the totalisator. It is difficult to imagine that taking place, but, at the same time, I suggest that the insertion of these words would serve the useful purpose of indicating to the licensing authorities the attitude of this House on this matter, and for that reason I hope he will accept it

7.41 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: A very interesting little point has been raised by this Amendment. In regard to paragraph (b) I am advised that as a general principle of law, a principal must be held responsible for his agents. Nothing new is introduced by the Bill—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is not the general principle in semi-criminal offences.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not know what may be the general principle in regard to criminal offences, but I am advised that if we inserted these words it would be an incentive to fraudulent operators, because any man in that case would disown responsibility and would shelter himself behind his employé. With regard to the first paragraph of the Amendment, the fact that totalisators are to be worked by electrical apparatus will mean that there is less room for human error than is the case in some of the totalisators now in use. But there may be a mechanical breakdown, or even an error in calculation. We must, always assume that licensing authorities are sensible people and will administer the law reasonably, that is a fundamental assumption. There appears to be an impression that an error in the calculation of the dividend will involve the automatic revocation of the licence. That is not the case. The licensing authorities may revoke a licence in certain cases, and one of the reasons for which they may revoke a licence is a report made by the accountant. It is the duty of the accountant to examine and certify the accounts. With the qualifications which are required
of an accountant under this Bill, if it was just a mechanical breakdown, I think, he would say it was a bona fide error and would let the licensing authority know, then the licensing authority would be able to report accordingly. He is fortified in dealing with the matter in that way because there is a mechanician whose duty it is to advise the qualified accountant on the condition of the totalisator and all matters connected with its operation. He too would be able to tell his colleague that there was an error. With all these safeguards it is not really necessary to insert a provision of this kind in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11 (Facilities for bookmaking on tracks) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Charges to bookmakers on tracks where betting facilities are lawfully provided.)

7.46 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, to leave out "five times," and to insert "twice."
The Amendment speaks for itself. This Clause deals with the charges that may be made to bookmakers to enter greyhound tracks. Why the figure "five times" should be in the Bill is a mystery, and I shall be interested to hear the Under-Secretary say what justification there is for it. In paragraphs 253 and 262 of the Royal Commission's Report the Commission expresses very definite views on the question of the charges to be made to bookmakers. The object of the Amendment is to limit the power of owners of greyhound tracks to charge bookmakers more than twice the normal payment by the public for admission. In paragraph 262 they say:
At the same time the bookmaker and his equipment occupy more space than a member of the general public, and we think it is reasonable that the management of a course should be allowed to make a charge which represents a fair payment for the space and facilities used by the bookmaker, his assistants and equipment. We suggest that the management should be allowed to charge a bookmaker twice, but not more than twice, the amount charged to a member of the public for admission to the enclosure in which he proposes to make his book.
That seems fairly definite. The recommendation had behind it the information supplied by every conceivable type of witness, and as a result of comprehensive examination the Commission fixed upon a fair figure for the bookmaker and for the owners of the course. The Bill states that the track owners shall have no interest in betting. According to the Home Secretary's decision, namely, that they can charge five times the ordinary admission payment, it seems to me that the owners of the track will have great interest in bettors if not in betting. Five times the normal charge seems to be on the excessive side and has some relation to the re-establishment of the totalisator. If you charge 7s. 6d. for admission to an enclosure and then charge the bookmaker 37s. 6d. it is a fairly hefty figure. The charge must be taken to some extent out of the bookmaker's client, and it will probably put the bookmaker at a disadvantage against the totalisator.
I may be told that the Jockey Club have certain arrangements whereby they fix a minimum charge of five times the [normal entrance fee paid by the average punter. That may be true, and may be set down as an example. But there are very few horse race committees in the country which make bookmakers pay five times the charge of admission paid by the ordinary person. The Home Secretary may regard the bookmaker as a very bad lot. I do not subscribe to the opinion that bookmakers are all scoundrels. If they have any politics at all I should think they are good Tories, and for that reason, if for no other, the Home Office ought to have been more generous to their friends. The only point is that the Royal Commission, consisting of intelligent men and women, had all the available information at their disposal. They reached a unanimous conclusion and their recommendation is clear. They thought, and I think, that twice the normal public admission fee is enough. I am hoping that instead of this 150 per cent. on the Commission's recommendation, the Home Office will see their way clear not only to reject the suggestion of an hon. Friend who wants to impose five times the Commission's suggested charge, but that they will see that the track owners do not have too great an interest in the bettors if they are not interested in betting.

7.51 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member asked me two questions. First of all, he asked why we do not stick to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the charge should be only twice the charge to the public. The answer is very simple. It is that the Royal Commission was dealing with quite a different set of circumstances, in that it did not recommend that the totalisator should be allowed at all on dog tracks. It was dealing with charges as if there were no totalisator. Therefore, the Commission's recommendations on that point cannot possibly be applicable. The second question was, why we had selected "five times," was it because the Jockey Club had some arrangement with the bookmakers? The answer is that "five times" is what this House decided in the case of racecourses for horses. In the Racecourse Betting Act of 1928 the House decided that it was proper to charge the bookmaker an amount not exceeding five times the amount to the public. We have adopted exactly the same principle for dog-racing courses, as there are now to be totalisators.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The recommendation of the Commission was that there should be no totalisators on dog tracks, and, therefore, no competition for the bookmaker. As there is now to be a competitor in the shape of the totalisator, clearly that increases the value of my submission.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I would like to ask the Under-Secretary again to consider the Amendment, although, had I moved an Amendment, I should have made the charge considerably less than the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) seeks to make it. Actually what will happen here is not that the bookmaker will be charged five times the amount that the public is charged, but will be charged five times the highest amount that the public is charged. We all know that on some tracks in the Provinces the highest amount paid is 3s. 6d.

Captain CROOKSHANK: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension there. The bookmaker is not necessarily charged five times the highest admission fee that is charged to any part of the track. It is only "not exceeding five times the
charge" for the part of the enclosure that he is entering. If he goes into the cheapest ring he will not be charged five times the admission fee to the most expensive enclosure, but five times the amount of the admission to the particular ring that he enters.

Mr. PIKE: I quite recognise that the wording of the Clause is
the highest charge made to members of the public for admission to that part of the track.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Exactly.

Mr. PIKE: After all, if people are going to bet with bookmakers, bookmakers have to be provided, say, in Tattersall's, in the same sense as in the open ring. The bookmaker in Tattersall's performs no different service from the bookmakers in the open ring. He is laying the odds, although he may be laying them to bigger amounts. The bookmaker in Tattersall's might be regarded as a more creditable person. We do not regard bookmakers in Tattersall's as people who are likely to welsh the public, although on a very few occasions they have been known to get away from there without meeting their obligations. On whatever part of the track the bookmaker takes his pitch he is performing the same service. If the highest price of admission on any given track is 10s. 6d., and the lowest-priced enclosure on the same track is 1s., it is unfair to charge one man 52s. 6d. to do the business for which another man is charged only 5s. It is drawing a class distinction not so much between two types of bookmakers as between two types of persons with whom the bookmakers are trading.
To charge five times the public admission fee is extremely unreasonable. Everyone knows that bookmakers are business men, wherever they are. If those in Tattersall's receive a bet which their book cannot carry for the moment, they just send out what is called a "tic-tac" to search the course for a bookmaker with whom they can lay off a part of that bet. It will probably be found that the bookmaker established in a cheaper ring, who has had to pay only 5s. for admission, is actually doing the bulk of the business of the bookmaker who is compelled to pay 52s. 6d. because he is in Tattersall's. The figure in the Bill is far too high. It might mean, as has been said, that the public will be
filched of certain odds to which they are entitled, and it might lead to other activities which we do not like to associate with the honourable business of the bookmaker. I believe that in 90 cases out of 100 in this country bookmakers are people carrying on a creditable business and as a creditable business we ought to respect it. Why should we penalise a person because he has to carry on his trade? That is all this proposal means. I may be a man with 10 times as much as the bookmaker but because the bookmaker goes into the same part of the dog track as I do in order to satisfy my desires, this Clause would compel him to pay five times the admission fee which is charged to me.
I do not think that is a very acceptable proposal in connection with legislation of this description. I feel sure that the Home Secretary has not given full consideration to the effect of this provision. It means that while you are trying to get from the bookmakers more than you are entitled to, you are going to create a position in which perhaps 25 bookmakers will form a company for the pur pose of attending to one track and 24 of them will go into the cheapest ring while one will be delegated to pay the 50s. or whatever the charge may be for the dearer part of the track and that one will transact all his business by "tic tac" methods through the others who are in the cheaper parts. We do not want to have evasion of payment of the legitimate price or evasion of the law and if the Home Secretary can see his way to substitute "twice" for "five times" in this Clause he will more or less meet the requirements of the bookmaking fraternity, just as he has met the requirements of those who are going to be responsible for the totalisator and create a happier understanding with the bookmakers in regard to this legislation.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I agree with the Amendment but not with some of the statements of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). I never knew before that he was an expert on "tic-tac" methods.

Mr. PIKE: I never said that I was.

Mr. SMITH: At any rate, the hon. Member told the Committee what the
bookmakers were going to do if this concession were not made to them.

Mr. PIKE: I was suggesting a possibility.

Mr. SMITH: Whether you alter this "five times" to "twice" or not, you will not in practice get the big bookmakers to go into the cheaper rings. As a rule they go to the rings where there is the most money and as a rule they do not make books for the benefit of the punters but in order to make some money for themselves. The Under-Secretary said that five times the ordinary amount had been adopted because it was the charge laid down in the 1928 Act but I submit that there is a difference between the present position and the position in 1928. In the first place the Royal Commission has recommended that the charge should only be twice the normal amount. In the second place we are now restoring the use of the totalisator on the greyhound tracks. Why should we, in addition, hand over to the owners of the track five times as much as they are entitled to in respect of these admission charges? We should like to hear from the Home Secretary himself some additional reasons for this proposal.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am sure that the Under-Secretary when he replied had not fully seized the point as to the changed circumstances following the recommendations of the Royal Commission. He attempted to make a point himself in regard to that but unfortunately it seemed to me that he made it upside down. The recommendation of the Royal Commission was, first, that the totalisator should not be re-established on these tracks, and, secondly, that the track owners should only be permitted to charge bookmakers twice the ordinary entrance fee. The right hon. Gentleman is deserting both recommendations. He is re-establishing the totalisator as a mechanical competitor with the bookmakers on these tracks and, contrary to what the law of logic would seem to require, instead of requiring the bookmakers should then only be charged twice the ordinary fee—and perhaps just the ordinary fee would be sufficient—the right hon. Gentleman increases the recommended charge by 150 per cent. It is said that this is the charge fixed in the Act of 1928. That was the figure
recommended for horse racecourses but we know that at horse racecourses generally this charge is not imposed upon the bookmakers because it would create a good deal of trouble. But not so in the case of greyhound companies. We have had some years experience and it was because the Royal Commission heard evidence of how bookmakers had been exploited in all kinds of ways that they made a definite recommendation as to a maximum charge. We do not want to hold up the Bill now but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the question between now and the Report stage in the light of the two recommendations of the Commission and the fact that he has restored the totalisator.

8.8 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think there is any great difficulty in dealing with this point. The truth is, of course, that we have departed from some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission but it is equally clear that the evidence given before that commission showed that extortionate charges were in some cases not so much a matter of the admission charges generally, but were due to the fact that the bookmakers went to a particular part of the course. No doubt as the hon. Member has said we are allowing mechanical competition with the bookmakers on these tracks. On the other hand we are putting the bookmaker in regard to the greyhound racecourses on exactly the same footing as he is in with regard to the horse racecourse and we are prohibiting the managements of these courses from adding to the bookmakers' burden any further extortionate charges. As I see it I think it is reasonable that we should treat the bookmakers in the same way in regard to all courses. Whether the betting is on dogs or on horses seems immaterial and in the circumstances I do not think there is any grievance involved. As a matter of fact, the charges for entrance in some of these cases may be materially less than the entrance charges in connection with horse racing. I think on the whole that we are right, and I propose to stand by that position.

Amendment negatived.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, after "times," to insert "less entertainments duty."
I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I desire the Home Secretary to make it clear whether this charge of five times the ordinary admission includes Entertainments Duty and if so whether any estimate has been made as to how much money the Exchequer is likely to get from the bookmakers.

8.11 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It does not seem to me that this involves a very large consideration. The limitation suggested would be very narrow. The rate of Entertainments Duty, as I understand it, varies from something like one halfpenny where the amount of payment for admission exceeds 2d. but does not exceed 2½d. up to 3d. where the amount paid for admission exceeds ls. 0½d. but does not exceed ls. 3d. and a further penny for every 5d. or part of 5d. over is. 3d. It did not seem to us a matter which should be excluded and therefore it is included.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Do we understand then that the track owners can also charge five times the amount of Entertainments Duty as well as five times the normal entrance fee? It is true that as regards those parts of the track where the admission is, say, 6d, and the Entertainments Duty is one penny, this is not a very important matter, but the right hon. Gentleman must also consider it in terms of admission charges running up to 7s. 6d., and in those cases the Entertainments Duty will amount to a considerable sum. The point, therefore, is whether the track owners are to be permitted in all those cases to charge five times the Entertainments Duty. If they are, who is to get it? Will the track owners pay the Government only one-fifth and retain the other four-fifths for themselves or will they pay up all the Entertainments Duty which they charge?

8.14 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I confess that I have not gone into the technical point raised by the hon. Member. I had not anticipated the possibility that more than five times the ordinary charge, plus whatever Entertainments Duty would be payable upon that, would be charged and think that that would be reasonable. I will go carefully into the matter between now and the Report stage.

Mr. T. SMITH: On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 (Occupiers of tracks not to have an interest in bookmaking thereon) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Betting with young persons, and employment of young persons in betting businesses, prohibited on tracks.)

The CHAIRMAN: I call on the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pike) to move the Amendment in his name in page 13, line 4.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Is not the Amendment in my name—in page 12, line 27, to leave out from "If," to "shall," in line 38, and to insert:
the occupier of any licensed track permits any person apparently under or known to him to be under the age of eighteen years to have access to the track during a time when sporting events are being carried on, he"—
to be called?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps it is not usual for any explanation to be given, in which case I should be wrong in asking for the reason.

The CHAIRMAN: I might inform the hon. Member in this case that I have come to the conclusion that his Amendment is out of order.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 4, at the end, to insert:
or that the person had wilfully presented himself or herself to be over the age of eighteen years.
This Amendment has been tabled with a view to removing a difficulty with which not many persons in this country are able to cope. We probably all remember having heard of the gentleman who pursued a, to all intents and purposes, nice young lady for a long way, only to discover at the end of his journey that he had been following a Gordon Highlander, and it is very difficult to
have inserted in a Bill like this the words:
Upon a charge under this Section in respect of a person apparently under the age of eighteen years.
It will mean, if the words stand as they are, that every person who makes a bet with a bookmaker will have to be subjected to personal scrutiny, and possibly, if he or she looks a little on the lighter side of years, to cross-examination. We know how unpalatable that can be, under some of our licensing laws, when authority begins to cross-examine a young lady. As an instance, a young lady was subjected in Sheffield a few weeks ago to cross-examination on the question of whether or not she was 18, because she happened to be on licensed premises enjoying a glass of port, and she took action against the police. Here we shall have the same position. Every person who appears to the bookmaker or those in charge of the totalisator to be under 18 will have to be cross-examined, and the trouble is that when the answer comes in the affirmative, that they are over 18, there is no guarantee that they are, and if it is discovered that that person is under 18, both the bookmaker and those responsible for the operation of the totalisator will be guilty of a contravention of this Sub-section. It strikes me that the Home Secretary does not intend that to take place, but the danger is that if these words stand and my Amendment is not inserted, people will be guilty of contravening the Sub-section, although they may have taken the word of the person concerned on the question of age.
I always claim, despite the appeal of a large number of Members in this House as to the despoiling of juvenile morals, that the younger element, the youth of this country, to-day is as keen on betting as some of the seniors. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] It may be a shame so far as the future of the manhood of the country is concerned, but it is nevertheless a fact, and those youngsters will adopt any and every method by which they can succeed in placing a bet. It will not be a great penalty to them to tell an untruth temporarily and tell the bookmaker who wants to keep within the law that they are over 18 years of age when in fact they are not. I am convinced that the best way to tackle that possibility is by inserting my Amend-
ment. You will then automatically put a stop to contraventions of this Subsection, because I believe that at that age, once an example has been shown, the youth of the country will be very cautious before they wilfully enter into the net of crime.

8.20 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: If this Amendment were accepted, it would really make it quite simple for the bookmaker to carry on betting transactions with a child or young person who was obviously of very tender years. The truth is that the provision in this Sub-section is based on a similar provision in Section 4, Sub-section (2) of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, and I have no reason to suppose that that is working unfairly or unreasonably to either party. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 8, after "made", to insert "with a bookmaker or".
In moving this Amendment, I want to make the Bill a little more practical. The Sub-section affects only the totalisator, and I submit that if bets are to be received and transmitted directly or indirectly with a view to their being placed on any event, it should be equal as between the bookmaker and the totalisator. We assume that they are in competition with each other, and I am anxious to avoid any differences or any favours being enjoyed by one which are not enjoyed by the other. It strikes me that if you ignore the bookmaker, you will find that a large volume of business that might otherwise be directed towards the totalisator will be directed to the bookmaker. I am not satisfied as to whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention that that should happen, and if it is not his intention, I ask him to accept these words and so strengthen his hands in the matter of administration.

8.23 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think the hon. Member need have any fears in this matter, because I understand that the Amendment is unnecessary. If he will look at paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1), he will find that it refers to any bookmaker or commission agent who has a betting transaction with a person
apparently under 18. Sub-section (4) merely extends it to cover the case of a man who negotiates a bet to be placed with a totalisator. Therefore, so far as I understand it, what the hon. Member really desires is achieved.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: Yes, but I want to make sure. I want the Home Secretary to realise that he is dealing with a problem which at first is bound to give rise to great controversies, and any addition or omission of words from the Bill upon which these persons who may be charged with contraventions can hang their case will be chosen for the purpose of bringing the Measure into ridicule If the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman can sufficiently protect him against that ridicule, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 15.—(evocation of licences.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 40, leave out from the beginning, to "or" in line 42, and insert "under this Part of this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Saving for right of occupier of track to prohibit betting.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.27 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider one possibility arising from the application of this Clause? Would he consider the advisability of including at the end the words, "unless the totalisator be inoperative as the result of a mechanical defect"? The position may easily arise in the middle of a racing programme in which the totalisator becomes defective and the mechanics cannot put it back into operation for the completion of the evening's programme. Any bookmaking that takes place through the medium of bookmakers during the rest of that evening's programme would then, under this Clause, be illegal.

8.28 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is unnecessary to have a protection of that sort, because such a contingency would happen very seldom.

Mr. LOGAN: Would it not be within the competency of the authorities of the track to allow bookmakers to operate? As I understand the Bill, if the totalisator is not operative the bookmakers can operate.

CLAUSE 18.—(Interpretation of Part I.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 16, line 24, to leave out from "council," to "having," in line 25, and to insert "or committee."

This Amendment and the Amendment which follows it on the Paper are both drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 8, at the end, insert:
'year' means a period of twelve consecuvive months beginning on the first day of July."—(Sir J. Gilniour.]